Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police Station (Orpington)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the building of the new police station at Orpington has not yet begun; what are the reasons for the delay; and what is the anticipated date for the beginning of the work.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): This project has been delayed by site difficulties. Agreement has now been reached on the site for the police station, but negotiations are still in progress for additional car parking spaces. Subject to a satisfactory outcome of these negotiations, it is hoped to start building in 1975.

Mr. Stanbrook: While it reflects great credit on my constituents, does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is also deplorable that a town as important as Orpington should be without a police station? Will he not get in touch with those responsible and tell them to stop mucking about and get on with it?

Mr. Carlisle: No one disputes the need for a sub-divisional police station in Orpington. Indeed, it has been accepted by the Home Office for many years. The first approaches about a potential site were made in conjunction with the local authority as long ago as 1958. I should welcome the police station's being built at the earliest possible moment.

Areas of Special Need

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provision of help to areas of special need in the inner cities, including those in which substantial numbers of recent immigrants live.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): In the three financial years 1970–71 to 1972–73 projects totalling about £18 million have been authorised in England and Wales under the urban programme for areas of special social need. In the same period local authorities with substantial numbers of Commonwealth immigrants in their areas have spent over £24 million on employing special staff under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. In each case the expenditure qualifies for Exchequer grant at 75 per cent.

Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome that statement, but does my hon. Friend think that this action is anywhere near adequate for tackling the problems that we see before us? Is not the main need for a vigorous joint programme worked out between himself and the Secretary of State for the Environment to prevent deterioration and to revitalise these decaying urban centres?

Mr. Lane: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are working closely with other Departments on this whole problem, and I am glad that he has drawn attention to it. The figures that I quoted, of financial support over the past three years, were at roughly twice the level of the previous three years. If we can continue this upward trend in Government help we shall be very pleased.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the Minister consider the special difficulties faced by local authorities to which many of the Ugandan Asian refugees have gone—in areas where, as we understand it, the housing situation is still very difficult, with very high rents being claimed and educational needs not being fully met? Will he consider the view of these local authorities, which is that they need more central Government help if they are properly to cope with the problem?

Mr. Lane: Yes. These views have been put to me by a number of local authorities. A special extra £2 million for relevant expenditure was included in the 1973–74 rate support grant settlement, particularly for helping those local authorities which had to deal with many Ugandan Asian refugees. But we shall continue to be in touch with the local authorities.

Mr. Kinsey: In assessing the needs of these areas, what immigrant population figures does the Minister rely on? Is he satisfied with the adequacy and accuracy of those figures?

Mr. Lane: The original Question dealt with help under Section 11 of the 1966 Act. That is the entitlement of any local authority with more than 2 per cent. of immigrant children in its schools. In general, there have been analyses of the total immigrant population in the recent 1971 census.

Hazardous Products (Legislation)

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation on the line of the Canadian Hazardous Products Act and similar United States legislation.

Mr. Lane: I should prefer to await the outcome of the present discussions within the EEC on a draft directive dealing comprehensively with the labelling of household products.

Mr. Wiggin: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the Canadian legislation it is possible for that country to prohibit by order the sale and advertising of hazardous products, such as children's seat belts and special car seats which, when fitted in a motor car, prove hazardous, although they are legal? Will he confer with his hon. Friends in other Departments to see whether legislation can be brought in to prevent the sale and advertising of these products?

Mr. Lane: Certainly. The instances which my hon. Friend gave of car seats and seat belts are matters for the Department of the Environment. We consult that Department. We have also been in touch with the Canadian Government about the way in which their Act is working in practice, and we shall take advantage of their experience.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Hazardous Products (Uniform Labelling) Bill, which I sought to introduce last Session, is now overdue and urgently needed, and that if the relevant EEC directive is unduly delayed my Bill should be reintroduced as a matter of urgency? As soon as he is appointed the Director-General of Fair Trading should be asked to co-ordinate all matters of health and safety about consumer products.

Mr. Lane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her continued pressure on this aspect of the problem. We are likewise trying to keep up the pressure in the working group within the EEC. Its directive will not be too long delayed. If my hon. Friend wishes to reintroduce her Bill, of course she can.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Minister explain why we have to wait for the working group of the EEC? Have we reached the stage where we cannot take decisions on our own on important matters of this kind? If that is the situation, the Government must think again.

Mr. Lane: That is not the situation at all. We are naturally playing our full part in the working party within the EEC, but we are not neglecting the situation in this country. We continue to produce regulations under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 over a wide range of matters. If it is necessary to do something urgent under that Act, of course we shall.

Legal Aid

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to amend Section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 with a view to assisting the courts and defendants who feel unable to conduct their own defence and who lack the financial means to engage a legal advocate.

Mr. Carlisle: No, Sir. Courts have discretion to grant legal aid when they think legal representation is desirable in the interests of justice and that the defendant requires assistance in meeting its cost.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that at present poor


people who apply for legal aid are sometimes refused on the ground that the charges against them are of only a minor character? Because many such persons are inarticulate, or because no matter how well-educated a defendant may be he naturally freezes in the presence of a court for the first time, surely it is in the interests of British justice that a defendant who claims he is innocent should be given the opportunity of providing the courts with proper evidence. In that way the courts could come to a proper decision. On those grounds alone will the Minister think again about the answer he has given and offer defendants the chance of being defended in a proper manner?

Mr. Carlisle: Discretion under Section 75 is as wide as it can be. It is that legal aid should be granted where it appears to the court desirable to do so in the interests of justice. There are then the criteria recommended by the committee under Lord Widgery and about which the Home Office recently reminded the courts in a circular. That said in particular that legal aid should be granted where the liberty, livelihood and reputation of the accused were in real jeopardy. Use of the grant of legal aid is going up enormously in magistrates' courts. Last year, for example, 83·7 per cent. of all applications were granted.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As any legal-aided defendant has to make a substantial contribution if he has sufficient assets, is there now any reason why he should not be allowed legal aid as of right?

Mr. Carlisle: It is true that the courts have power to make a contribution order when granting legal aid, but if the hon. Member is seriously suggesting that everyone who appears in court, whether it be for a parking offence, or a speeding offence, or whatever, should, as of right, be entitled to be represented at the cost of the State, I do not agree with him.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he

expects to introduce amendments to Section 45 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.

Mr. Carlisle: Any amendment of this section must await the outcome of the current general review of the lotteries law.

Mr. Ewing: The current review has been going on for about 18 months or two years. May I enter a plea for urgency on behalf of nearly all Scottish football clubs which are dependent on income from lotteries to bring their grounds up to crowd safety standards? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the £750 limit on the sale of tickets, which has been eroded by application of 10 per cent. VAT on printing costs, is adequate to meet the needs of bringing these grounds up to the required standards of safety?

Mr. Carlisle: There is undoubtedly a case for considering the limits under Section 45. I do not dispute that for a moment. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member that the review which has been taking place by an inter-departmental working party of officials has now been completed and that it has reported to Ministers. The Government are now considering what the next step before consultation should be.

Self-Defence (Legal Definition)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to define the means of self-defence which a citizen may legitimately use when attacked.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): No, Sir. The law on self-defence, which allows the use of such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, is under review by the Criminal Law Revision Committee as part of its review of offences against the person. It would be premature to contemplate legislation before the committee has reported, nor is it likely that it would be found possible to define the precise means of defence that would be reasonable in the great variety of situations than can occur.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but is he aware


that in the last 10 years in Great Britain cases of robbery and assault with intent to rob have increased by 230 per cent. and cases of rape by 63 per cent.? In these circumstances, does he think that the ordinary citizen has the right to protect himself and the right to know what means of protection he may use for his self-defence?

Mr. Carr: Of course the ordinary citizen has the right to self-protection, and he must have, but if we were to give him the right to carry weapons which could be offensive weapons, how would we know, when someone was carrying a weapon, whether he intended to use it for offence or defence?

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the Home Secretary seriously maintain that carrying firearms, knives or other cutting instruments cannot clearly be said to be not justifiable in terms of defence? In these circumstances, will he consider the matter again? The standard excuse put forward by criminals for carrying offensive weapons is that they carry them for self-protection.

Mr. Carr: On the question of firearms, in a very short time the House and the public will have the chance to consider new proposals that I am about to publish for consideration. I hope that that will be the time to go into the matter. On the question of the control of weapons which cannot be carried lawfully—and I think this was the point I was making— if we allowed them to be carried lawfully we would be unable to control them.

Miss Fookes: As one who has been attacked, may I assure my right hon. Friend that the last thing in one's mind is deciding whether it is reasonable to use a particular form of defence when the occasion actually arises?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that is so, but that is exactly why it is probably better to leave it under the common law position, as it is at the moment, because that does not restrict in any arbitrary way what can or cannot be done in a particular circumstance. It leaves the court to judge whether what an attacked person does is reasonable in the circumstances.

Prison Building

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

if he is satisfied with the present prison building programme.

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the prison building programme.

Mr. R. Carr: Good progress is being made. The number of new places started in the last finacial year was over 2,000 and is hoped to be about 3,000 in the current year. This compares with only 80 new places started in 1969–70. I will, with permission, circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Short: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a growing body of public opinion that believes that the policy of building a large number of new prisons instead. of the smaller kind of hostel accommodation, which is urgently needed, is misdirected? Does he not agree that his thesis is untenable as long as highly disturbed women are being shut away in Holloway without receiving the kind of treatment that they need, and as long as boys and girls of 14 and 15 are put in prison because the right kind of hostel accommodation is not available for them?

Mr. Carr: As the hon. Member knows, accommodation for all those under the age of 17 was transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As for accommodation for those over 17, we are building hostels as well as prisons, in the literal sense of the word, and those who object to the present prison building programme somehow fail to realise that even if we are successful, as I would hope we shall be, in stopping the apparently never-ending increase in prison population, we shall still be faced with the fact that 12,000 of our roughly 30,000 to 40,000 prisoners are accommodated more than one to a cell—sometimes two or three to a cell. Even if we halt the rise we shall still need new prisons.

Mr. Fowler: On a separate problem affecting prison building, may I remind my right hon. Friend of the serious disturbances in a number of prisons last year? Has he decided whether troublemakers should in future be housed in a separate prison, as recommended by Lord Mountbatten, or in separate facilities in existing prisons? If he has not decided


that, when may we expect a decision on the matter, which affects prison building policy?

Mr. Carr: It is a very important matter. I have almost completed my study which I announced last autumn, and I hope to make a statement in the not-too-distant future.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Can the Secretary of State say anything about the provision being made for workshops in the new prisons, and whether they will be adequate to introduce a full industrial day? Is any consideration being given to much smaller prisons along the lines of the interesting experiment in the Netherlands, where the rate of recidivism is much lower than it is here and where no prisons of more than 200 places are any longer being built?

Mr. Carr: The workshop situation is far from satisfactory. I can assure the House that a significant part of prison building expenditure is designed to improve workshop provisions. But whatever we do to some of our old prisons we shall not be able to provide adequate workshops in them.
The hon. Lady's second point is very interesting. I want to keep under close review not only the scale but the quality, the nature, of our prison building programme. I particularly want to study— though I confess that I have not yet done so—what is being done in Holland.

Following is the information:

PRISON BUILDING PROGRAMME (ENGLAND AND WALES)

1. At the end of the financial year 1972–73 work was in progress on the following new establishments or extensions to existing establishments. The list indicates where buildings are already occupied:

Place and Size and Type of Establishment

Acklington, Northumberland. 450 Category C prison. First inmates April 1972.

Blundeston, Suffolk. 120 New cell block to prison.

Bristol. 192 New cell block to prison.

Channings Wood, Devon. 484 Category C prison.

Castington, Northumberland. 300 Young Offender establishment.

Deerbolt, North Riding. 420 Young Offender establishment.

Dover, Kent. 60 New borstal house.

Erlestoke, Wiltshire. 100 Extension to Detention Centre.

Glen Parva, Leicestershire. 840 Young Offender complex.

Haverigg, Cumberland. 150 Extension to Category C prison.

Hollesley Bay, Suffolk. 185 Secure borstal unit.

Long Lartin, Worcestershire. 492 Category B prison. First inmates January 1971.

Maidstone, Kent. 115 Additions to prison.

Northeye, Sussex. 200 Extension to Category C prison.

Norwich. 60 Remand centre.

Portland, Dorset. 72 New borstal house.

Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire. 80 Extension to remand centre.

Ranby, Nottinghamshire. 374 Category C prison. First inmates June 1971.

Rochester, Kent. 120 New remand centre.

Stoke Heath, Shropshire. 120 New borstal house.

The Verne, Dorset. 160 New cell blocks to prison.

Wellingborough, Northamptonshire. 120 New borstal house.

Wrabness, Essex. 816 Category C prison.

Work was also in progress on Phase I of the complete redevelopment of Holloway prison for women.

2. t is hoped that work will start in the financial year 1973–74 on the following new establishments or extensions to existing establishments:

Place and Size and Type of Establishment

Camp Hill, Isle of Wight. 160 New cell block at prison.

Eastwood Park, Gloucestershire. 50 New house at detention centre.

Featherstone, Staffordshire. 484 Category C prison.

Kirkleyington, North Riding. 40 New house at detention centre.

Lockwood, Oxfordshire. 507 Category B prison.

Low Newton, Durham. 80 Extension to remand centre.

Liverpool. 192 New cell block at prison.

Onley, Warwickshire. 120 New cell block at borstal.

✶Stradishall, Suffolk. 300 Category C prison.

Thorp Arch, West Riding. 75 Extension to remand centre.

West Mailing, Kent. 450 Young Offender establishment.

Wymott, Lancashire. 816 Category C prison.

✶ This development will eventually be superseded by a prison for up to 500 Category B prisoners and a detention centre for 220 trainees.

3. planning clearance is held in principle for the following major schemes on which it is hoped to start work in the period 1974–75— 1976–77.

Place and Size and Type of Establishment

Bovingdon, Hertfordshire. 484 Category C prison.

Carr Wood, North Riding. 100 Detention Centre.

Everthorpe, East Riding. 300 Young Offender establishment.

Feltham, Middlesex. 820 Young Offender complex.

Gartree, Leicestershire. 816 Category C prison.

Griston. Norfolk. 484 Category C prison

Hewell Grange, Worcestershire. 300 Young Offender establishment.

Hollesley Bay, Suffolk. 400 Young Offender complex.

Low Newton, Durham. 447 Category B prison.

North Weald, Essex. 360 Remand Centre.

Stocken Hall, Rutland. 600 Young Offender establishment.

Swaleside, Kent. 816 Category C prison.

Tudworth Hall, West Riding. 300 Young Offender establishment.

Werrington, Staffordshire. 100 Additional unit at detention centre.

4. Planning clearance has been sought, or informal discussions opened with the planning authority, in respect of a number of further proposals including those listed below. If planning clearance is obtained it is hoped that a start could be made on these proposals in the period 1975–76–1977–78.

Place and Size and Type of Establishment

Duxford, Cambridgeshire. 300 Young Offender establishment.

Full Sutton/Riccall, East Riding. 465 Category B prison, and 484 Category C prison.

Gorseinon, Glamorgan. 500 Category B prison.

Hobbs Barracks, Surrey. 484 Category C prison.

Holmes Chapel, Cheshire. 484 Category C prison.

Marchington, Staffordshire. 500 Category B prison.

North Cotes, Lincolnshire. 500 Category C (later Category B) prison.

Watchfield, Berkshire. 408 Category C prison.

5. A major part of the prison building programme will continue to be devoted to improvement of facilities at existing institutions. Some schemes providing more accommodation for inmates have been listed at 1 and 2 above. Other schemes provide new workshops, upgrading of works services, improved security and extensive refurbishing. Examples of schemes now in progress, or on which it is hoped to start work in the financial year 1973–74 are:

Brixton prison. Security improvements.
Chelmsford prison. Boiler house.
Durham prison. Multi-storey workshop.
Exeter prison. Workshop.
Grendon/Spring Hill. Kitchen and dining room.
Latchmere House remand centre. General improvements.
Leicester prison. Boiler house.
Lewes prison. Workshops.
Rochester. Boiler house.
Wandsworth prison. Gate and perimeter security.

6. Expenditure on the erection and purchase of quarters for staff at existing establishments is now at the rate of about £4 million a year.

Police (Complaints)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his consultations with chief officers of police and

other interested parties relative to his proposal to set up independent review procedures for complaints against the police on an experimental basis.

Mr. R. Carr: Discussions have begun with the police representative bodies and a further meeting has been arranged for later this month. It is too early to make any comment on the progress of the consultations.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the debate in February I have received a number of letters from all over the country giving case histories which stress the need for a statutory basis to the review procedures which the right hon. Gentleman then agreed in principle? Will he accept that, whilst in that debate none of us felt it right to mention specific cases, specific chief officers, or specific police authorities, we are under great pressure to see the experiment under way this year and a statutory basis to review procedures next year?

Mr. Carr: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not lost enthusiasm for the project since I made my statement to the House about it in February, on the occasion of the debate on the hon. Gentleman's Private Member's Bill. Discussions are proceeding, and I hope to keep to the time table that I announced in February, of bringing the outcome of my discussions to the House before the end of the year. It is very important that the police should feel sure that all their views and objections—the hon. Gentleman will know as well as any that there are some rather serious objections within the police force—should be able to be aired, fully discussed and debated, and considered. Therefore, we must not make too much rush—but I want to make as much hurry as I can.

Racial Harmony

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite community relations council officers from all over the country to meet him in order to discuss future concerted policies for the promotion of racial harmony.

Mr. Lane: The work of community relations councils is co-ordinated by the Community Relations Commission, with


whom my right hon. Friend and I keep in close touch. We have no present plans for a national meeting with community relations councils.

Mr. Davis: I thank the Minister for confirming that he keeps in close touch with that body. Does he agree that the work being undertaken by community relations councils and community relations officers, particularly in stress areas, is most constructive and valuable in ensuring racial harmony? Will he at the same time repudiate the approach of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in his recent speech at Brent, in which he alleged that Government Departments were misleading the country, and in that way sought to arouse fear, which can only do damage to improving racial relations?

Mr. Lane: I deprecate any statements by anyone inside or outside the House that arouse unnecessary fear. I very much agree with what others have said about the value of the work being done nationally and locally by community relations bodies. I hope to see more of it myself during the year. Any support that hon. Members on either side can give in their own areas is of great encouragement to the many people who are giving a great deal of time to this most important work.

Mr. John Page: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people believe that the best way to promote racial harmony would be a total ban on all immigration for some time?

Mr. Lane: I know that many people hold that view. My view is that the right policies to maintain and improve racial harmony, which is what the Government are doing, are very strict control over immigration, coupled with full support—again, I hope by the overwhelming number of hon. Members—for the constructive work being done all over the country.

Metropolitan Police (Manpower)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reductions occurred in the size of the Metropolitan Police Force between 31st December 1971 and 31st December 1972 and 18th March 1973.

Mr. R. Carr: Fifty during the calendar year 1972, and 84 between 1st January and 18th March 1973.

Mr. Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman extremely worried by those figures? At a time when crime has been increasing in London and the London police force has considerable additional security duties, is he not worried to find himself presiding over a reduction in the size of the Metropolitan Police Force? Will he please institute an urgent review into the numbers being recruited, the pay and conditions of the force, and incentives that can be given to retain experienced officers in the force? Even these figures disguise the loss of experienced police officers after several years service but before they have reached retirement age.

Mr. Carr: Whereas the police position over the country as a whole gives me cause for encouragement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the strength in the metropolitan area gives cause for great worry. There is a recruiting campaign this year, under which no less than £100,000 is being spent on recruiting publicity. It should also be remembered— I do not say this in any way to belittle the seriousness of the situation—that during the past year the Metropolitan Police increased its civilian staff by 500 and traffic warden strength by 100. That means that more policemen are being diverted to the sort of duties that only policemen can do and are being saved from doing other work. We must look at the overall position, but I am still very worried.

Mr. Tebbit: What has happened to the Special Constabulary? In my experience, the morale of many of its members is very low and in my part of Essex there have been many resignations.

Mr. Carr: It was only last summer, I think, that I sent a circular to all chief constables throughout the country, asking for a new recruiting drive for the Special Constabulary. It is true that there has been a decline—with many resignations— among the Special Constabulary, partly, I think, because over the years it has become an ageing force. We had to go through the point where many of the older members retired. A recruiting drive


is going on throughout the country, on which I am receiving regular progress reports. This, too, is being supported for the first time with some national recruiting publicity.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree that in many parts of London the crying need is for more policemen on the beat, to stop muggings and people's fear of walking in some areas at night? Is not the police force in London still 5,000 under what is already a tight establishment? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to review the London allowance and the undermanning allowance, to see whether greater incentives should now be given to policemen serving in London?

Mr. Carr: I agree with the hon. Lady about the need for more policemen in London. I am worried about the present situation. I am glad to say that in the last three years we have managed to improve police pay and conditions, relative to the population at large, by a substantial amount. A differentia] for London is a difficult matter, not only in incomes policy terms but in Police Federation terms.

Commonwealth Immigrants (Repatriation and Re-entry)

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in the case of Mr. Mohammed Khan who was assisted at the public expense with escort to return to Pakistan and after a short stay returned to this country and was readmitted; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is not made a condition of financial assistance towards repatriation that the people assisted should not have the right to return to the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. Carr: Mr. Mohammed Khan was repatriated under the Mental Health Act 1959 and not under the main repatriation scheme.
My powers to control re-admission to this country are governed by the 1971 Immigration Act. Under Section 1(5) of this Act all Commonwealth citizens

settled here on 1st January 1973 have a right to re-admission unless they have been away for more than two years. This right, however, does not extend to people repatriated at public expense who settle here after 1st January 1973.
I can assure the House that all cases involving assistance for repatriation will be very searchingly examined in order to make as sure as possible that the people concerned genuinely intend to reside permanently overseas.

Mr. Bell: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that two conclusions seem to follow from this situation? Is not the first conclusion that it is quite pointless to repatriate people under the Mental Health Act because they simply come back again? Is not the second conclusion that an amendment is needed to the 1971 Immigration Act, so that a sensible, voluntary, assisted repatriation policy may be implemented?

Mr. Carr: The case referred to was a monstrous one, and I understand the high feeling that exists about it, but it should be realised that—as far as I know —it is the first case of its kind, and I certainly hope that it will not be repeated. I shall keep a close watch on the situation. I think that my hon. and learned Friend would agree that, by and large, when people are prepared to go back it is right to assist them to do so. Hitherto, we have not suffered from the trouble of people returning. We have to consider that. As for the 1971 Act, I remind the House that the section which gives the right to which I referred was not included by the Government: it was carried against the Government in another place.

Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would further assist community relations and enable the Conservative Party to implement an election pledge if he made a reality of voluntary repatriation for the many immigrants who do not wish to remain here?

Mr. Carr: I have recently announced an extension and improvement of the repatriation scheme. Those who wish to go back—and I underline "wish to go back"—should be helped to do so. The scheme as it stands provides rather generous help for that purpose.

Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House whether the Government invited this House to reject the amendment of another place, to which he has referred? I appreciate that he will want to avoid so far as possible, any repetition of this absurd incident, but will he not be deterred from encouraging repatriation, particularly of mental patients from Broadmoor and other hospitals?

Mr. Carr: The answer to the first part of my right hon. Friend's question is "No." As I recollect it, the Government did not invite this House to reverse the decision taken in another place. I shall certainly not be deterred from doing as my right hon. Friend asks, because it is right for this country and for the people concerned that they should be given help. It is worth running the risk of occasional abuse to achieve the greater good. I must watch the situation carefully.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is only the medical reasons that have to be overwhelming before someone is assisted with repatriation? Will he further confirm, for the benefit of some of the supporters of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), that to think that the coloured population of the country will return to their own countries in any great numbers because of repatriation assistance is absolute rubbish? Does he not agree that the normal pattern of movement with, say, the West Indies is that it is sometimes in one direction and sometimes in another, and that repatriation has nothing to do with it, except in a tiny minority of cases?

Mr. Carr: I still think that assistance with repatriation is an important service to make available to those who wish to go back. I am sure we are right to do it. We have always stressed that it was there as a service to help those who wished to go back. I accept that the pressure created by it is quite small in relation to the other social and economic pressures which at any given moment tend to cause major flows inwards or outwards. This is still an important matter. Under the Mental Health Act it is only when doctors advise it on medical grounds that repatriation takes place.

Thefts (Wages and Salaries)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it the practice of his Department to collect and publish the numbers of incidents of thefts of wages and salaries by employees being taken to, from or at places of work, and the totals of amounts involved.

Mr. Carlisle: This is not practicable with existing statistical resources. My right hon. Friend will bear the suggestion in mind as it becomes possible to implement the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Criminal Statistics, which he has already accepted in principle.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that there has been an alarming increase in this type of crime in recent years? If it would do nothing else, would not publication of these figures lead more quickly to a round-table conference between the appropriate Government Departments, the banks and insurance companies, aimed at evolving schemes attractive to low-income groups involving bank or other credit systems which would thus stop what has become the increasing absurdity of taking money to and from place of work?

Mr. Carlisle: There has undoubtedly been an increase in robberies and wage-snatch offences, although I cannot give the figures. I agree with my hon. Friend that from a preventive point of view everything possible ought to be done to make such offences more difficult.

Parking Fines (London)

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of parking fines outstanding in the London area at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Carlisle: Information about unpaid parking fines imposed by the courts is not available, but most parking offences in London are dealt with by fixed penalty notices. In the first six months of 1972, 635,000 such notices were issued in the Metropolitan Police district; payment was made or waived in 465,849 cases; 10,563 cases resulted in prosecution; and 158,588 cases remained outstanding.

Mr. Horam: Does the Minister agree that the recently-announced plan to introduce keeper liability will do something to reduce the high figures he has given? Will he say whether there is any thinking going on in the Government, in his Department or the Department of the Environment, on the next logical step, which is to prevent people who have outstanding fines from renewing their annual vehicle licence? Is he aware that this has been a common practice in other countries for some time, and seems to work well?

Mr. Carlisle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of thinking goes on all the time in all Government Departments. I cannot say whether the transport Ministry is giving consideration to the point he has raised. I will certainly bear it in mind. As he says, the Government have declared their intention to introduce legislation on owner liability.

Mr. Marten: Does the figure which my hon. and learned Friend has given for outstanding parking tickets include those issued to the Diplomatic Service?

Mr. Carlisle: Probably not. I think that they would come within the bigger figure of 465,849, which included not only those which were paid but those which had been waived.

Commissioner of Metropolitan Police (Discussions)

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on matters within his responsibility.

Mr. R. Carr: In pursuance of my responsibilities as police authority, officers of the Home Office are constantly in touch with the commissioner and his senior officers on a wide range of subjects. Arrangements for the deployment of police officers, about which the hon. Member recently spoke to me, are a matter for the commissioner, whom I have informed of the views the hon. Member expressed.

Mr. Cox: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but am I to assume from it that the commissioner will support divisional commanders who wish to further the introduction of neighbourhood policemen within their divisions? The system of neighbourhood police has be-

come extremely popular in the London borough of Wandsworth and, I am sure, in many other areas. In view of the shortage of police officers in the Metropolitan Police force, will not the Home Secretary think again about a special London allowance to attract officers and also to keep them?

Mr. Carr: I cannot add any more in reply to the general question, which worries me, about the strength of the Metropolitan Police Force. The neighbourhood police force is a good system and, as far as I know, the commissioner would wish to see it extended as far as the strength allows.

Mr. Costain: In discussions with the commissioner, will my right hon. Friend study the necessity for the restrictions which still apply to the employment of policemen's wives? Are not these restrictions out-dated, and do they not prevent people joining the police force?

Mr. Carr: I must confess that that is a new point to me. I shall think about it.

Illegal Immigrants (Deportation)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Commonwealth citizens who entered Great Britain illegally and who have been resident for more than six months have been compulsorily repatriated; and whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for such repatriation.

Mr. Lane: Since 1st January 1973, 13 Commonwealth citizens who entered the United Kingdom without examination by an immigration officer and who had been here for more than six months have been removed under the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971.

Mr. Judd: I make no comment on the controversial nature of the Appeal Court ruling today about the retroactive nature of the new legislation, but does the Minister agree that there have been disturbing reports about the way in which, in some circumstances, the new regulations have been implemented? Will he ensure that where these regulations are implemented they are always implemented with a great degree of sensitivity for dependants and relatives?

Mr. Lane: I am aware of the cases to which the hon. Member refers, and I have given instructions in the sense he suggests. At the same time, when we are seeking still further to strengthen our defences against illegal immigration and over-staying, we believe it right to use the new power given in the 1971 Act, but only after careful consideration of all the circumstances in individual cases.

Mr. Fowler: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the real question is how many people are able not only to enter this country illegally but to remain here, apparently, for long periods and get jobs here? Is he satisfied that even today our means of combating illegal immigration are adequate?

Mr. Lane: No, we are never satisfied, but day by day I see cases of men who have been here for varying periods, sometimes for as long as a year, or even longer, who have been found. Proceedings are taken against them and they are deported. We are trying to improve our methods all the time.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of cases where compensation was paid to a victim of crime, and the total value of such compensation since the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 1972.

Mr. Carlisle: The compensation provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 came into force only on 1st January of this year. Information on the use by the courts of these provisions is being collected but is not yet available.

Mr. McCrindle: I agree that these are early days to expect figures to be produced, but is my hon. and learned Friend convinced that the public have been made fully aware of their rights under the Criminal Justice Act 1972? If he comes to the conclusion that that is not so, will he employ all forms of publicity to make the public aware of their rights under the Act?

Mr. Carlisle: Although the figures are not available, my impression is that considerably wider use is being made of the powers to order compensation. I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. Although, obviously, one cannot suggest

what the courts should do in individual cases, Parliament made clear in the Criminal Justice Act that it hoped that the courts would use their powers widely to award compensation to victims of crime.

Mr. Peter Archer: Would not more impact be made on this problem if legal aid were available to applicants before the Criminal Injuries Board? Is not this yet another instance in which the poorest and the least articulate are at the greatest disadvantage?

Mr. Carlisle: With respect, that is a rather different question, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the criminal injuries compensation scheme is being reviewed, and one question that can be considered is whether or not legal aid for applicants would be appropriate.

Police (Pension Rights)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make arrangements for the transfer of pension rights for those police officers who were formerly serving in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Carlisle: No, Sir. At present the Armed Forces pension scheme does not provide for the payment of the value of pension rights on transfer to another scheme. I understand that this aspect of the Armed Forces pension scheme is under review and future practice will be considered in the light of the outcome of the review.

Mr. Hunt: Is not it an absurd anomaly that a police officer who formerly served, for example, in the Post Office, or as a clerk in local government, is entitled to the transfer of his pension rights, whereas a man who fought in the Armed Forces during the war and subsequently joined the police force enjoys no such entitlement? In the interests of justice and common sense, will my hon. and learned Friend speed up the review and, if it is favourable, implement it?

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that it appears to be an anomaly, but it is based on the fact that the Armed Forces' pension scheme is of a wholly different nature from the pension schemes in the police service and the public service, in which pension schemes are freely transferable.


The review is being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I shall draw to his attention what my hon. Friend has said.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Ql. Dr. Vaughan: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at the Guildhall on 10th April on the economy.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made in the Guildhall on 10th April on the economy.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Commons a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on 10th April on Government policies.

Qll. Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Guildhall on Tuesday 10th April on Government policies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so on 11th April, Sir.

Dr. Vaughan: I think we would all agree that the Government are beginning to win the psychological battle as well as the real battle on the economy and that the country and the unions are beginning to realise this. Does the Prime Minister support the statement of Mr. Clapham, of the CBI, that the economy of this country is going up like a rocket?

The Prime Minister: The figures for wage negotiations under stage 2 strongly support what my hon. Friend has said. Already, 3 million people are receiving wage increases which were negotiated before the standstill and deferred, and furthermore nearly 3 million have negotiated agreements under stage 2. Those figures support my hon. Friend's view. The expansion of the economy is being maintained at 5 per cent., or perhaps at slightly more than the 5 per cent. rate which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced.

Mr. David Steel: In that speech the Prime Minister referred to changing pub-

lic attitudes on industrial relations. Will he confirm that the changing attitudes include the Government's attitude, and that they are positively moving forward into constructive proposals for industrial partnership?

The Prime Minister: The Government have, in fact, taken the lead in this matter. They did so when they negotiated the talks at Chequers last summer, in which the CBI and the TUC co-operated. We made a great deal of progress at that time, although we did not reach final agreement in October. Since then there have been continuing talks, and in all these matters the Government have put forward a constructive approach.

Mr. Roberts: Another theme in that speech was the reconciliation of competing interests and claims. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that only a comparatively small number of workers participated in the strike on 1st May indicates that the majority of workers are abandoning the philosophy of conflict propounded and so beloved by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches?

The Prime Minister: Yes, there is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. The public statements that have been made and the articles that have been written by several trade union leaders in the last few weeks have clearly indicated their desire to adopt the approaches which my hon. Friend has outlined.

Mr. Joel Barnett: As the Prime Minister and his colleagues appear to be so convinced that the economy is going up like a rocket, will he confirm that phase 3 will be less stringent than phase 2?

The Prime Minister: We are inviting the trade unions and the CBI to discuss with us the form of stage 3 and what it should be quantitatively. It is better to await those discussions, because stage 3 will also be affected by the findings of the Pay Board on anomalies and its suggestions on how these should be dealt with in that period. The hon. Gentleman and his friends must make up their minds whether they want to have an expanding economy. This is an expanding economy, and they had better say whether or not they approve of expansion.

Mr. Adley: Is not it clear from the so-called May Day demonstration that the majority of people want to get on with the job and take advantage of our expanding economy, and that the only people who appear to want to wreck it are a small number of militant trade unionists and most of the Parliamentary Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: It was demonstrated clearly that the great majority of the working population, which numbers 23 million—of whom more than 21 million were at their jobs—want to carry on and do not want to have political strikes. It will long remain in the memories of people that it was the Labour Party which supported a political strike.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On inflation, which was the subject of the speech, will the Prime Minister say what his calculations are of the average increase for 5 million council house tenants, required under his legislation coming into effect over the past seven days?

The Prime Minister: I gave the right hon. Gentleman the figures when he last raised the matter. If he wants fresh figures and cares to put down a Question I shall give them to him.

Mr. Wilson: On previous occasions the Prime Minister said how difficult it was to work out what the councils would do. Now he knows. Does he say that at no time since 28th April has he made any inquiries to satisfy himself about the penalty that he is inflicting on 5 million households?

The Prime Minister: We are not inflicting a penalty on 5 million households. We have given a benefit—which the Labour Government never did—to all those families with two children living on up to average earnings. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that however much people earn they should not pay fair rents for local authority houses, he is rejecting his own policy.

OFFSHORE OIL (LICENSING POLICY)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Treasury and the

Department of Trade and Industry in determining what balance between taxation, royalties and fees for licences in respect of oil from the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf will produce the maximum advantage to the economy of the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends are co-operating closely on these matters in the current review of licensing policy.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Prime Minister care to enlighten us about the criteria being used to ensure that this country benefits from its indigenous oil in no way less than other countries similarly placed? Will he consider setting up a separate fund into which these revenues could be put, so that it could be used to redress the regional imbalance?

The Prime Minister: The arrangements made with other countries have been studied fully and will be taken into account in the review of the licensing procedures now being carried out. However, the implications of putting the revenue into a separate fund for the financial policy of the United Kingdom are very considerable. All previous Governments have refrained from doing this, for obvious reasons. The imbalance in Scotland and other regions is adjusted from the central Treasury and, again, the implications of any change in the arrangements for the sums which would go from the central Treasury to Scotland, Wales or any other region, would be considerable.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the latest revised estimates of reserves in the British sector of the North Sea which have still to be announced will reveal that we are now 80 per cent. self-sufficient in oil? Bearing in mind that the search for oil in the North Sea has been going on for only three years, is not this a full vindication of the Government's policy? In the light of the world energy imbalance, does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy should continue to be the most rapid exploration of the Continental Shelf, and not the maximising of revenues at this stage?

The Prime Minister: The last part of my hon. Friend's question is obviously a matter of balance. Complicated energy


issues arise on this question, as to the speed with which particular oilfields can and should be developed in the national interest, and the balance has to be struck between that and the revenue which can be obtained. There is considerable misunderstanding in different parts of the country about the first part of my hon. Friend's question. We are not at the moment 80 per cent. self-supporting in oil. Oil does not begin to flow until 1975. There is time for adjustments to be made as a result of the review before the oil begins to flow. The potentialities of these fields are bound to change continually as fresh discoveries are made. The last figure was 75 million tons a year, and no doubt that has now increased. We must complete the review before we can know what the possibilities are at any time.

Mr. Dell: In view of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee was told that a review of licensing policy had been going on since the first half of 1972, is not it time that the Government made a statement?

The Prime Minister: We wish to take account of the views of the PAC. It is right to do that. We shall make a statement as soon as possible. But there will not be a fresh round of licensing before a statement is made.

PUBLIC BODIES (GOVERNMENT APPOINTEES)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to impose on senior members of public bodies appointed by Ministers the same conditions relating to the taking up of employment on retirement with outside firms as are now imposed on retired senior civil servants.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to his supplementary question on 12th April [Vol. 854, c. 1505]. As I said then, I am considering this matter generally, but the position of appointees to public bodies is different from that of members of the Civil Service, and this must be taken into account.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister agree that there are certain similarities between the two, in the sense

that people who are appointed to public boards and then retire have a good deal of expertise which can be used with great profit by private companies in contractual relationships with Government Departments which seek to engage them? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a good deal of disquiet in Scotland, for example, concerning two people who served for a number of years with the Highlands and Islands Development Board and are now actively engaged in land speculation based on the North Sea oil discoveries? Is not that highly undesirable? The suspicion may or may not be warranted, but it deserves careful examination. I hope that we shall have an assurance that the matter is being studied with a degree of urgency.

The Prime Minister: All members of the Highlands and Islands Development Board have to sign an Official Secrets Act declaration. That Act binds them during and after their service in regard to information obtained through dealings with the Government. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that a declaration of this kind has been broken, I shall see to it immediately that an inquiry is made.
On the general question of public boards, when people are appointed to them they bring a great deal of expertise with them. If there is to be any limitation after they leave the boards, the already great difficulties of persuading people to serve on public boards will become even greater. What is more, there will be no sanction to impose against them after they leave the public boards.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While awaiting the result of the survey which is being carried out, can the Prime Minister say how far it is the practice of existing public boards, corporations, and so on, in their original employment contracts, to provide, for example, that people concerned with awarding contracts do not, without the permission of the board or corporation concerned, take up service with some of those to whom contracts have been awarded? Is this fairly general practice? Do any of the boards do it?

The Prime Minister: There are variations in practice in this respect. It would affect the permanent employees of public bodies more than board members who


may serve for only a limited period. That is one of the matters that I am looking into.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the difficulty of trying to resolve an issue of this kind, but does the Prime Minister agree that there is increasing concern on the part of the general public about the conduct of people in public life? Will he give serious consideration to the introduction of a code of conduct applying to everyone, whether they be appointees or elected representatives, in both local government and Parliament, in much the same way as he applies a code of conduct to his Ministers?

The Prime Minister: The code is clearly laid down, has been handed on from one Government to another, and is continually brought up to date in respect of the requirements of Ministers.
I understand that discussions are still proceeding on the matter relating to Members of this House.
Regarding the Civil Service, I have reviewed all the instructions. On the whole, they have worked well. The fact that, where there have been breaches, action has been taken either internally in the Civil Service or possibly in the courts, in particular cases, shows that they are being fully implemented.
I am still studying the part relating to local government. For obvious reasons, it may not be possible to make a statement on this matter for a little while. We have just discussed the question of public bodies.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is no concern in Scotland about these appointments? They are very good. Will he go ahead with them and not be diverted by any of these absurd canards of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7TH MAY—Supply (18th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on Prices During Phase II.
Remaining stages of the Education (Work Experience) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill [Lords] and of the Matrimonial Causes Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
TUESDAY 8TH MAY and WEDNESDAY 9TH MAY—Remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 10TH MAY—Supply (19th allotted day).
A debate on Defence, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Fertilisers (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme.
FRIDAY 11TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 14TH MAY—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Motions on the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Regulations and on the Electoral Law (Northern Ireland) Orders.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on a number of occasions in the session before Easter he changed his plans and the undertakings that he had given to the House about Motion No. 243 standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten):
[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities (No. C. 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matters.]
Is he now in a position to tell us when that matter will be debated? Surely he must have copies of the translations now.
Secondly, may I ask—he has been asked about this matter before—when he expects to be able to let us have a Government statement on the Younger Report on Privacy and on the Report of the Computer Society and of the Royal Statistical Society on the secrecy of the census which was presented to the Government many months ago?

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Member asks about the Prayer by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). The translations of the draft regulation are available. They were available before Easter. I recognise that we shall need a debate on this matter at a convenient time, but I am informed that there is no particular hurry for a debate. Any decisions which may be reached are some months off, so there will be time for adequate discussion long before any decisions have to be taken.

Mr. Marten: Before Whitsun?

Mr. Prior: I do not know whether my hon. Friend will insist that there be a debate before Whitsun. The amount of time available between now and Whitsun is very limited, and I should not like to give an undertaking to that effect.
I should like to consult my right hon. Friend on the Younger Report and then get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilson: I must press the right hon. Gentleman further. He gave a pretty clear assurance that he was hoping to take that motion before Easter. He then shifted his ground on it. Will he now give us a pledge, having failed to provide time for a debate before Easter—which he told us he ought to do—that this matter will be debated before Whitsun?

Mr. Prior: When I first said that I hoped that the House would debate it before Easter I was under the impression, from what my hon. Friend said, that there was a need for a quick debate and decision by the House. My information now is that there is no particular need for a quick decision. In fact, various changes are taking place. For example, the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries have altered the situation.

Mr. Marten: Nevertheless, may we debate this matter as soon as possible? The original objection was that the documents were not available, but they are now available. We ought to get on with this matter. May we have an assurance that we shall debate it within the next seven or eight weeks, as the draft regulation is due to come into force at the end of this year?

Mr. Prior: I am not trying to avoid an obligation to have a debate on this matter, because I know that the House will wish to discuss it. I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend has made two statements on this matter in recent days and that discussions and observations are continuing. My hon. Friend asked whether we would debate this matter within seven or eight weeks. I do not want to commit myself absolutely to a time, but I should be very surprised if it were not within that period.

Mr. C. Pannell: May I ask the Leader of the House to name an early day on which he will bring forward and move the adoption of the unanimous report of the Committee of Privileges which has been here since 20th June last year, that Committee having been set up at the will of the House to consider the style and title of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton)? Will he bear in mind that I raise this matter at this late stage only because of the numerous attempts that I have made, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), at the right hon. Gentleman's request, to seek an accommodation with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a trivial matter. It touches on a ruling by Mr. Speaker and the status of a Member of this House. It also impinges upon the status of a senior committee of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that this matter brooks no further delay.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for the forbearance shown by the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members on this matter. As the House knows, my hope has always been that it will be possible to settle this matter without a debate. However, I realise that it must eventually be brought to a conclusion. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I shall not find it easy to arrange for a debate within the next week or two.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Still on committees, it is nearly two years since the Select Committee on Procedure urged the Government to take a fresh look at our present method of preparing legislation. Precisely nothing appears to have been done. I know that my right hon. Friend is very busy, but may I ask him


to look at this matter and perhaps to make a statement next week?

Mr. Prior: I hope to announce early next week the composition and terms of reference of a committee on the preparation of legislation. I am glad to tell the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has agreed to accept my invitation to be the chairman of that committee. I hope to announce the names of the members of the Committee next week. It will be an extremely important Committee, which will have far-reaching effects on the understandability, if that is the right word, of our legislation.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Does the Leader of the House recall that when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made his statement on Tuesday, following the negotiations on Common Market commodity prices, he indicated that it was the Government's intention to make a statement on the provision of concessionary butter for Britain's elderly and socially deprived "within days"? That statement has not yet been made. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the Government's intention to make a statement next week on this important aspect?

Mr. Prior: I confirm that it is the Government's intention to make a statement on that matter within days—and within days from last Tuesday when my right hon. Friend said so.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Earlier, my right hon. Friend indicated that we have a heavy programme between now and Whitsun. Does that programme include a debate and decision on the new parliamentary building? If so, when, how long will the debate last, and will he confirm that it will be on a Government motion that the building should be proceeded With?

Mr. Prior: When I referred to our having a heavy programme before Whitsun, I meant to emphasise that there are only three more parliamentary weeks left before Whitsun. Time is short. I hope that we shall be able to find time to debate that matter before Whitsun. I wanted a debate earlier on this subject.

but additional information became available to the Services Committee which it was felt should be reported to the House in advance of a debate. That committee will be reporting shortly to the House. We shall then see whether that will give enough time for the House to consider the further report from the Services Committee and whether a debate will be possible before Whitsun. I have noted my hon. Friend's comments about the Government tabling a motion to approve the new building. I should like to consider that matter.

Mr. Dell: In view of the disgraceful decision of the Government to attempt to reverse the decision of the Standing Committee on the Social Security Bill on tax rebates for reserve scheme contributions, does he not feel that two days will be totally inadequate for the Report stage of the Bill? Will he allow additional time for that consideration to enable the House to be properly informed on the implications of the Government decision?

Mr. Prior: We must see how we get on, but I very much hope that we can make good progress on the Bill in those two days.

Mr. Iremonger: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time before Whitsun for a short debate on Early Day Motion No. 321 so that the matter be considered by the House before the delegation leaves?
[That this House takes note of the fact that a delegation of hon. Members is shortly to visit the Soviet Union, is hopeful that this country's traditional championship of oppressed minorities and individuals will be maintained by them on this occasion, with special reference to Sylva Zalmanson, who has been incarcerated by the Soviet Government in circumstances that cause grave concern and anxiety to all Jewish Soviet citizens and recall the trials of the Stalin era, and requests those hon. Members to convey to the Soviet authorities for transmission to Cylva Zalmanson a package containing letters of encouragment and vitamin foods, which package will be delivered to the hon. Members at London Airport on their departure, and asks the delegation to nominate one of its members to receive it.]

Mr. Prior: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it is for hon. Members themselves when visiting foreign countries to decide which matters they raise with their hosts. I shall refer his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Leader of the House recall that 10 days ago a spokesman for the Department of Education and Science told newspapers that a statement on school building costs was imminent? Will a statement be made next week and may we have a categorical assurance that the statement will be made to the House and not outside?

Mr. Prior: I shall convey those remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but I know of no statement on this subject that is likely to be made next week.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry makes an early statement on Rolls-Royce?

Mr. Prior: I am not aware that any statement on that topic is likely to be made within the next few days, but I will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does the Leader of the House recall that nearly three months ago he told me that he was making a big effort to arrange for debates on the reports of Wheatley, Robens, Younger, Franks and Erroll, all published in 1972? We realise that he has problems in terms of time, but what has been the result of his big effort?

Mr. Prior: One of the results of my big effort is that we are debating the Select Committee's report on broadcasting this afternoon, and there have been many recent examples where we have been able to have a general debate on subjects which we have not been able to debate for some years.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the grave importance of the subject, will the Leader of the House find time to debate the extradition procedure between Eire and the United Kingdom before the extra-

dition order against an Ulsterman, Mr. Taylor, is executed? Will he bear in mind the working of the reciprocity arrangements with the Eire Government, since that Government have been unable to find terrorists wanted for the murder of British soldiers and citizens in Northern Ireland? Will he also bear in mind that the courts in Eire have consistently shown bias in favour of such terrorists by refusing to extradite them on grounds that they were committing no offence?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I cannot find time for that. We are devoting an enormous amount of time to Northern Ireland affairs and it shows a sense of ingratitude to ask for more.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the impending Operation Eyesore campaign for 30th June and the repeated Government assurances that they are considering extending the scheme, may we have a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment next week announcing the Government's decision about the scheme, since thousands of jobs are at stake and the future appearance of Britain is also affected?

Mr. Prior: Operation Eyesore has been a very successful campaign. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking a great personal interest in this campaign. I will convey to him the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the Leader of the House convey to the Home Secretary the fact that the House would like him to make a statement on the Maxwell-Stamp Report? That report relates to the problem of taxicabs and minicabs and needs to be aired.

Mr. Prior: I do not think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to make an early statement on that matter, but I shall consult him and ask him to get in touch with my hon. Friend. I thought that we had got some way forward on the subject of taxis and minicabs, but I will check on the situation.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman conduct an investigation into the occurrence during the Finance Bill Committee proceedings last night when


no Government Minister was able to find the Geneva Protocol of 21st December 1972 under which taxes will be raised from the ordinary people of this country? I have always taken the view that there should be no taxation without representation. Since the Prime Minister is to meet the President of France shortly, will he take steps to suspend the Finance Bill Committee proceedings until the Geneva Protocol is found, or certainly until the Prime Minister is able to convey to President Pompidou that he might be able to look at it, if it exists, to enable us to proceed with the Finance Bill Committee stage?

Mr. Prior: Though I have not had reported to me the proceedings on the Finance Bill last night, I note what the hon. Gentleman said. Since he has given a full explanation of what happened, no doubt others will have noted it.

Mr. Redmond: May I once again press my right hon. Friend to find time to debate the subject of metrication? Has he seen the letter I sent to him yesterday showing that in the present situation there is a possibility of danger to life and limb, if somebody misunderstands the difference between simple metrication and the new SI units. If there is a danger of sloppy joints in motorway bridges, may there not be a catastrophe unless we do something about the situation within the democratic process?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in his letter, which I have studied. I recognise that the subject of metrication is very important, but I cannot promise time immediately for a debate.

Mr. Loughlin: May I draw attention to Motion No. 311 which is in my name?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make clear in no uncertain manner to the Government of France their absolute opposition to the proposed nuclear test in the Pacific Ocean.]
Is he aware that 80 other hon. Members signed that motion within a day of its appearance? It draws attention to the proposed nuclear test in the Pacific Ocean. Is this not a subject on which, in view of our relations with Australia and New Zealand, there should be a full

day's debate so that the French Government will know what we feel about the test?

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary answered Questions about this matter yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also answered Questions on that matter over a long period of time. The Government hope that France, in common with all other countries which have not yet done so, will accede in due course to the partial test ban treaty of 1963, which prohibits nuclear tests in the atmosphere. This is well known to the French Government and has been made clear repeatedly in this House.

Mr. Ashley: The Prime Minister was recently asked whether he would refer to the Central Policy Review Staff the question of how effectively Britain could exercise its influence against the use of torture in Turkey, Greece, South Africa and Brazil and he evaded that question. Is there any chance of a debate on this topic next week?

Mr. Prior: Since I know something about the duties of the CPR staff and the sort of matters which it has on its plate, I doubt whether that would be a suitable subject to refer to it.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for nearly 12 months we have been put off with a wide variety of excuses for the Government's inaction in dealing with the report of the Committee of Privileges to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) referred earlier? Does he not agree that the status and authority of that committee is most important in Parliamentary affairs and that when that Committee is asked to deal with a ticklish constitutional matter, it is most undesirable that when that committee issues a unanimous report no action is taken on it? May we have an assurance that some action is taken, if not next week, certainly within a month?

Mr. Prior: I am not certain that I can accept the contention of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) that a number of excuses have been offered for 12 months. We have been trying continually to find a way round the problem which would not take up the time of the House. That would be in conformity with


the wishes of the House. But I recognise that that process cannot go on for ever and I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said. If, in the next week or two, I am unable to find a satisfactory outcome, the House will have to be asked to make a decision on the matter. I accept that.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman is the chairman of the Committee of Privileges. He must recognise that whatever time has been put in off the Floor of the House has been put in to save the time of the House. A great deal of time has been put in over the past few years by successive members of successive Committees of Privileges.
The House always attaches the greatest importance to the work done, for the most part, by senior hon. Members on that committee. It would be intolerable if hon. Members have to serve on that committee and then for month after month, and at the present rate of progress for years, nothing happens with the unanimous report. The question might be raised whether the Members of that committee should continue to serve unless the right hon. Gentleman gets on with it.

Mr. Prior: I have had very much in mind that the Committee of Privileges has put in a lot of time and that it is a senior committee. I have been trying to balance the need, on the one hand, to receive the views of the committee with the desire, on the other hand, not to take up the lime of the House on a matter which most hon. Members feel should be settled, if possible, without taking up the time of the House. I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have been pressed very strongly on this matter. I know that time is now getting very short, and I have taken due regard of that.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Can the Leader of the House give us some idea about the Government's thinking on the Erroll Report? When are we to have a debate on that report?

Mr. Prior: The Government are still considering the Erroll Report. I am not able to promise a debate within the next few weeks.

Dr. Gilbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect to see the Page Report on National Savings, which has been with the Treasury since before Easter? In fact, we expected to have the report at that time. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us when we may expect to see the report, can he reassure the House that there is no foundation in the rumours that the report might be suppressed because its contents are not to the Government's liking?

Mr. Prior: There is absolutely no foundation in that rumour. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the report has been completed and that my right hon. Friend hopes to publish it shortly.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Leader of the House consider further the urgent need for an early statement on the question of limiting the costs of educational building? A serious situation is arising in some areas, including my constituency, because projects cannot go forward because of a lack of decision by the Minister.

Mr. Prior: I have already answered a question about this matter. I shall convey what hon. Members have said to my right hon. Friend and I shall ascertain when she can make a statement.

Mr. MacLennan: Is the Leader of the House aware that the arrangements which he has made for the House to scrutinise the conduct of foreign policy are wholly inadequate? In 17 months, we have had one day of general debate on foreign affairs. As the Government are engaged in monthly consultation with the Davignon Committee in Europe about the conduct of our foreign affairs in the European context, is it not time that he should look at the matter seriously with a view to making opportunities for hon. Members to scrutinise and recommend courses of action in this most important sphere?

Mr. Prior: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said. It is true that we have not had a foreign affairs debate since Christmas. However, there are other opportunities when foreign policy matters can be discussed. We have had a two-day debate on defence and we shall have a one-day debate on defence next week. Further, there are all the opportunities which have become available because of Common Market legislation.

Mr. Marks: Is the Leader of the House aware that his right hon. Friend has been promising local authorities, teachers, and this House for weeks that there will be a statement on the urgent matter of the unit cost of school building? Such statements have always been given in April, and last year's statement came on 4th April. Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the delay of this statement? It is an urgent matter for local authorities.

Mr. Prior: I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on. We have an important debate and a matter of privilege.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 21st MAY

Mr. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is relevant to the Ballot. I was obviously mistaken when reading the Ballot for Notices of Motion for 21st May, I understood that the opportunity for hon. Members to enter the Ballot ceased at 3.30 p.m. Obviously I was wrong. I should like, Mr. Speaker, your ruling. When does the opportunity cease for hon. Members to enter the Ballot?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Ballot box is removed from the Lobby at 3.30 but that hon. Members can continue to put their names in while the box is still on the Table. I am informed that that is the practice. I shall go into the matter.
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Neil Kinnock.
Mr. Ian Sproat.
Mr. Peter Trew.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. George Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have an extremely unpleasant point to raise. It concerns the question whether I have been impeded in the discharge of my parliamentary function by a decision of the Serjeant at Arms.
Last evening, I was informed by one of the Assistant Serjeants at Arms that the Serjeant at Arms had given a specific instruction that I was not to be provided with a copy of the list of Lobby correspondents accredited to this House. A copy of that list is kept by the Serjeant at Arms as the proper Officer of the House.
Yesterday, for the purposes of my parliamentary duties in connection with an important piece of legislation next week, I wished to be in touch with a large number of Lobby correspondents. Therefore, I wished to have a complete and up-to-date list of correspondents. I did the correct and simple thing of asking at the office of the Serjeant at Arms for the list.
First, I was told that the list was confidential. That was such an obvious imbecility that the position was quickly changed. I was then informed that, while I could look at the list, I could not make a copy of it. Naturally, I protested at that as any hon. Member would do.
I was then informed late last evening that the Serjeant at Arms, despite my remonstrations, had personally instructed that I was not to be given a copy of the list. Lobby correspondents come here not to talk to the Serjeant at Arms but to talk to me and other hon. Members— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They come to talk to me rather than the Serjeant at Arms and to be available to me rather than the Serjeant at Arms.
There are two other sources from which I might get the list. One is Vacher's, but that is out of date. The other source is, of course, the Press Gallery, but naturally and rightly, we have a restriction on entering the Press Gallery premises so as to preserve the privacy of the correspondents. In any case, the Serjeant at Arms is the proper official to whom I should go for this simple facility.
This is an idiotic and childish bit of petty obstructionism. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to do two things. First, can you use your authority—I understand the restrictions and the position between the House and the Serjeant at Arms, given its curious and ridiculous historical nature— to ensure that before this afternoon is out I obtain a copy of the very simple thing for which I am asking? I am still being


hampered in the conduct of my parliamentary duties by not having it.
I ask you not to rule upon this matter now but to consider it and whether the refusal of this simple facility constitutes an obstruction of my parliamentary duties amounting to a contempt of this House or to a breach of privilege of a Member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter of privilege. According

to modern practice, I will consider it and rule upon it tomorrow.

BILL PRESENTED

DENTISTS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Nicholas Scott presented a Bill to amend the Dentists Act 1957; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th May and to be printed [Bill 125].

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in the last Session of Parliament and of the relevant Government Observations on this Report (Command Paper No. 5244).
I rise to do so in my capacity as Chairman of the Sub-Committee which carried out the investigation and was primarily responsible for the preparation of the report.

Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) and the names of his hon. Friends, at the end add
'but deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to implement the main recommendations in the Report and, in particular, the Minister's cursory dismissal of the Report's proposals for a full-ranging inquiry to be set up at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976'.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Before drawing the attention of the House to certain aspects of the report, I want to emphasise two things. First, the report, like almost all of its predecessors from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, is a unanimous report, which very much reflects the long-established habit of mind amongst members of the Select Committee —that facts rather than political preconceptions dictate the character of the report. This has been again exemplified in the present instance.
In passing, I want to place on record my deep appreciation of the co-operation and help I have had from all members of the sub-committee and also from our specialist adviser, Professor Himmelweit. No chairman has been supported by a better team.
Secondly, I wish to emphasise that although our terms of reference allowed us only to inquire directly into the Independent Broadcasting Authority, increasingly the Select Committee found, as the investigation proceeded, that it was not possible to look at the past, present and future of the IBA without also having regard to the whole context

of communications and to more fundamental questions, such as what kind of a society we want and what should be the rôle of this most powerful of the media in our national future. I shall return to the point later, but this aspect is one particular reason why my colleagues and I were, to put it no stronger, acutely disappointed that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has turned his back on our request for a wide-ranging inquiry into communications in the country and has simply prolonged by a further three years a situation which is patently unsatisfactory, not least to the viewing millions. Personally, I can only hope that the Labour Party's parliamentary leadership will move with due dispatch to put right this matter when it returns to power in the near future.
Those hon. Members who have had an opportunity of reading the report will have noticed that there is fairly frequent reference to the Pilkington Report, mostly favourable in character. The point to be made here is that although Pilkington reported in 1960, and it is in many ways an excellent report, it was made only four years or so after commercial television was initiated in this country. The situation Pilkington faced was one in which only two television channels existed and in which the viewing public was only just getting used to having a choice of viewing.
Today, 13 years later, the situation is very different, with a much larger viewing public, long used to television and to having a three-fold choice, and who are living, moreover, in a society which has demonstrated to it the awesome power of television to affect the quality of our lives for good or ill.
It was this last factor which persuaded the Select Committee, despite its somewhat constricting terms of reference, to recommend in its report the need for
… a full ranging enquiry at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976.
The report goes on:
Such an enquiry should have broad terms of reference and consider not only the B.B.C. and the Authority, and take into account the newer technological developments which profoundly affect the position of broadcasting. It should study the systems of other countries and, following the example of Canada, such an enquiry should examine studies of the long term social, cultural, economic, political and technical implications of different options and


invite public debate about the purpose, financing of and access to such systems prior to making recommendations.
The report goes on to spell out our view of the requirements of a good broadcasting service. We stress in particular the limitation of ratings as a measure of quality, the need for greater innovation and diversity of programmes, freer from the editorial control of the professional broadcasters, and the need for greater public debate on matters affecting broadcasting policy and for broader representation of the public in the decision-making bodies of the industry.
Without setting its face against advertising as a source of broadcasting revenue —our remit did not encompass that possibility—the committee recommends an examination of the systems in various European countries in order to reduce if possible the effect of the sale of advertising time on the quality of the programmes produced and, in particular, to see whether it would not be to the public good if the planning and production of programmes were not divorced from the sale of advertising time.
From its investigations, the Select Committee came strongly to the view that the IBA, though technically competent and conscientiously discharging its duties as it interprets them, was none the less too much influenced by the needs of the companies which are its agents, was too cautious in testing new forms of programme and in affording greater public access to the medium, and insufficiently responsive to the public as well as to those working in the industry.
What we are trying to say in the report is that, as a public body entrusted with considerable powers, the IBA should be seen more clearly to be accountable to the people. But what we are also trying to say is that communications, including television in all its aspects, have become so important a part of life in this country, and, indeed, throughout the world, that only a painstaking and thorough public inquiry—and, even more importantly, public debate—can produce answers appropriate to the latter part of the twentieth century.
It is in this context, as I hinted earlier, that the committee was very disappointed at the unimaginative and negative reply of the Minister to what has been a

thorough and conscientious attempt by the Select Committee to relate the problems of the IBA to the wider scene.
In an industry of such importance to our future and with such a capacity to go wonderfully right or disastrously wrong, it is in our view simply not good enough to allow things to drift towards a situation in which quality and excellence are at a heavy discount and commercialism reigns supreme. Our people deserve much better of us than that.
I turn now to the official reply by the Minister to the report. In rejecting the committee's call for a wide-ranging inquiry, the right hon. Gentleman, quoting the hastily-established Television Advisory Committee, states among other things that
… no technical advances affecting the basis on which the present structure of broadcasting rests are likely to develop until the 1980s.
But surely the issue is not one of technical advances. We are talking here of much more important matters than the continually evolving technical progress of the industry.
With all the evidence produced by the Select Committee—unanimously agreed, I remind the House—that all is not all right with commercial broadcasting in this country—a view independently stated, incidentally, in the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on broadcasting published several years earlier—it is quite frankly irresponsible if not fatuous to talk about technical advances or the alleged lack thereof as a reason for doing nothing for the next eight years.
I say to the Minister that the question of what kind of communications industry we have in the years ahead is bound up with the future of our society. If television is to play a socially responsible rôle in the years ahead and to realise its full potential for good, we must begin to lay down the guidelines for its future development now. Not to face now the problems it poses is an abdication of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial responsibility. But, as if he realises that this unconvincing reason for doing nothing would not persuade an educationally subnormal eight-year-old, the Minister throws in for good measure another reason for inactivity—namely, that a new Chairman of the BBC has just


been appointed. I must say that this last excuse breaks new ground as far as I am concerned. Since when, I ask my-self, have we in this country concerned ourselves with the retirement of individuals in considering major items of reform of this character affecting several of our major national institutions?
As if still unconvinced by his own arguments—and who shall blame him? —the Minister then throws in for good measure a further reason for leaving things as they are for the present— namely, that more experience of wired broadcasting or cable television is needed. But unless money is put into this by the Government for purposes of experiment other than by commercial interests, no more will be known at the end of the day than at the beginning. Under the present arrangement an individual in the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications has to authorise in advance the schedules and content of each cable television experiment.
Thus, having set up in effect a mini, inexperienced IBA within the Ministry and starved these local experiments of the funds they need if the exercise is to have any meaning at all, or at any rate is to be capable of evaluation subsequently, the Minister has virtually guaranteed that the current experiments in cable television will be quite meaningless, almost as if he had set out to prove that cable television is not important—a view which may be popular in the higher echelons of both the BBC and the IBA but is not shared by many other countries, a number of which, including Holland, have published papers for public debate and as a means of stimulating public awareness of the possibilities of this medium.
Just as we as a community are concerned about such things as the quality of our schools and libraries, the growing isolation within urban life, the failure of groups within our community to find legitimate expression and discussion of their points of view, so should we be concerned to ensure that potentially important new developments such as cable television are properly tested and evaluated with a view to their use in the enrichment of our society. To use the present half-baked, ill-fated experiments as an excuse for not holding a wide-ranging inquiry

betrays, in my opinion, a woeful lack of understanding of what is involved here.
As people who have been charged with the increasingly difficult task of governing the country, hon. Members may care to reflect that cable television, with its exciting possibilities of a two-way transmission of ideas between government and governed, could be the vital missing link. Surely government must be more effective the more we know what people's views are and the more we are able to communicate our own views to them.
However, I leave that somewhat philosophical point and turn now to the reply of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to the Select Committee's Report— the official reply, of course. The unofficial reply is no doubt unprintable.
Here I should like to make a general comment to register my concern at the way the replies of the IBA to our various comments and criticisms were not so much an answer as an excuse for pleading yet again for the fourth channel— or ITV 2, as the authority prefer to call it, in very good propaganda style. A better reason for not giving it to the authority could hardly be imagined.
The other point I would mention is the patronising tone of the IBA reply. As it happens, the Select Committee spent a great deal of time hearing evidence— the IBA representatives themselves were before us for nearly eight hours in total —reading material from this and other countries and also, of course, studying the initial and subsequent written submissions of the authority itself. It is a little irritating, therefore, to read a document which seems to take no notice of the fact that eight conscientious and reasonably intelligent Members of Parliament spent a large amount of time and sweat equipping themselves to understand the problems of the industry, but treats them as if they were a bunch of overlanders just in from three years in the Australian outback.
As an example, let me quote the short paragraph at the top of page 7 of the reply. The Select Committee's Report, the authority tells us,
treats balance and quality together. They should be distinguished; not only because they represent different aspects of programme output, but also because the problems of ensuring them are distinct. A well-balanced schedule can consist of programmes each of poor quality; and programmes all of high quality can constitute an ill-balanced one.


To which I and my colleagues on the Select Committee reply with a sad shake of the head and a quiet, "Amen".
Again, the Select Committee is rapped over the knuckles because, according to the IBA, it seems to—and I underline those words—regard "quality" as the opposite of "popular" as far as programming is concerned. It goes on:
Balance, of a kind, can he ensured by organisational means. What cannot be simi-larly ensured is that documentaries are enlightening, plays moving and comedies funny.
Good hard-hitting stuff, we can all agree, except that nowhere is there any such misapprehension revealed in our report. Indeed, our lengthy interrogation of the IBA witnesses should have made it plain beyond doubt that we are well aware that a programme can be both popular and of high quality. The words "seems to" in this part of the reply were designed, I assume, to get the authority over this little difficulty.
But much more serious than these infelicities is what we believe to be the misconceived idea of its own rôle currently held by the IBA. It sees itself primarily as a public watchdog not only approving broadcasting schedules but also growling disapprovingly from time to time and occasionally wagging its tail in approval when something especially good has been produced. Thus, at the top of page eight of the reply we read these lofty words:
When poor quality is diagnosed, by the Authority or by its advisory committees or by its staff, this is taken up with the producing company. Equally, productions of exceptionally high quality also attract comment, so that the forces of emulation and example may do their work.
It then adds:
Quality cannot be prescribed: it grows out of the creative talent to which the system has access.
In view of the Select Committee, quality in this context is determined very largely by the opportunities and the constraints provided by the authority itself. We feel strongly that what is wanted is not more constraint but greater opportunities for the numerous talented broadcasters within Independent Television to develop their talents. If the IBA claims that there is ample opportunity within the system for talent to express itself, why should the principal television trade

union—and perhaps the greatest repository of the industry's talent, incidentally —the ACTT, have complained so strongly to the Select Committee that it is not consulted and indeed that its advances are rebuffed when it comes to discussing the quality of programmes?
Moving to page 10 of the IBA reply, we read that, in its opinion,
one cannot both hold the ring and enter the ring.
But that felicitous little observation misrepresents the quite precise representation of the Select Committee, namely, that the IBA should encourage, if necessary with proper funding, the production of programmes which, on artistic grounds, may be desirable but which management may regard as financially too risky.
To say, as the IBA does, that
the Authority would not wish to see the companies' own responsibility for innovation lessened 
is seriously to misrepresent the quite clear recommendation of the Select Committee Report.

Mr. John Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kerr: No, I am sorry. One could go on at length—

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst rose—

Mr. Kerr: The hon. Gentleman can catch Mr. Speaker's eye in due course and put the record straight if he wants to.
One could go on at length instancing the defensive and negative stance adopted by the IBA in its reply to our report. But such an exercise would sorely try the patience of hon. Members, and in any event might even be counter-productive by making members of the IBA feel like a beleagured garrison, with the whole world against them.
We feel that the authority has misunderstood its brief, but driving the IBA into the ground has certainly not been my committee's intention. We have sought to make the Minister and the IBA— indeed, the whole communications industry—aware not merely of their responsibilities but also of the enormous opportunities now opened up before them—and that brings me to my last point.
As I said earlier, members of the Select Committee were deeply disappointed at the Minister's decision to


refuse our urgent request for a wide-ranging inquiry and to extend the present francise of the IBA and BBC until 1981 for what many of us regard as unsound reasons.
Knowing the way of Ministers, we have no high hopes of persuading the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind and to adopt the unanimous decision of the Select Committee. However, there is still one way in which, at least in part, he could repair the damage done by his decision, and that concerns the fourth television channel which, in our view, it would be a travesty, in present circumstances, to hand over to ITV.
In its investigations, the Select Committee became more and more impressed with the need for careful research and experimentation in the field of television broadcasting. In particular, it felt that the rôle of local and regional television, and its potentialities, was inadequately understood by Governments and their agents and that much more work needed to be done, by way of carefully controlled experimentation, and so on, to explore these new and exciting possibilities.
A number of us feel that the immediate institution of such a wide-ranging series of well-financed experiments would go some way to expiate the highly regretted decision of the Minister to refuse the inquiry which we so strongly and unanimously recommended.
Like the Lord, the Select Committee desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he shall turn from his wickedness and live. I commend our report to the House.

4.24 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: I start by declaring my interest as a director of Granada Television and also as director of the radio company which has been offered the franchise for the Manchester area. I should also point out that the Granada group is interested in television rental.
Before I pass comments—and probably critical comments—on some of the recommendations of the Select Committee I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), the Chairman of the Committee, and to the

Committee for their mammoth labours, and to the many expert witnesses who have given us all much to consider.
In paragraph 1 of the IBA's observations there appear the words:
In its investigation, the Committee was more concerned with the machinery of Independent Television than with its output.
That is precisely my impression. In the recommendations the accent is on organisation, control, research, formal procedures, programme planning, boards, and so on, rather than on the key question whether the citizen and his family in their homes are receiving satisfying programmes and what can be done in direct and practical ways to improve them. That, to my mind, should have been the starting point.
How do we fare as viewers? By world standards, the quality of television in this country is high. For this we can thank the BBC, which set those standards for radio and television many years ago and has maintained them. Since then the choice and quality of programmes offered to viewers has improved by steady stages. The advent of ITV provided such competition that for a while it had 75 per cent. of the audience. No-one today will deny that this competition enlivened programmes.
A few years later BBC 2 was launched. Mainly for technical reasons, it got off to a slow start, but I believe now that this addition to the other two channels completes what is probably the best and perhaps even the widest variety of choice available in any country, despite the number of actual channels available in America.
Anyone who has seen American television will concede, too, that we have been fortunate in the excellence of the actual picture on our screens. No one in England questions colour. The only question is whether one can afford colour, but even the cost of colour television has been made less painful by the existence of the television rental industry, which has made possible its phenomenally rapid expansion.
The British viewer is well provided in respect of programmes and the ability to receive them. When a journalist writes about a "crisis" in broadcasting, it may be his crisis. I do not believe


that it is a crisis to most viewers. I, personally, see no crisis. I see our present situation as yet another opportunity to continue the improvement, in its widest sense, of our television programmes.
The fourth channel, if it is skilfully used, gives us exactly that opportunity and incidentally, I point out to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), a means of meeting some of the recommendations of the Committee.
Amidst all the controversy about the fourth channel, on one thing we must surely be agree—namely, that its output should be complementary to that of the three other channels. It must provide additional choice and fill obvious gaps.
Before I discuss how that may be achieved, I will deal with two essentials which have had too little attention in the various proposals so far canvassed— production facilities and finance.
Independent Television has a surplus of productive capacity. That is the price we pay for plurality. If we believe, as we do, that there is an advantage in programmes being initiated from a variety of sources and regions we have to accept that particular inefficiency. But this spare capacity means that a fourth channel can be operated more economically from the present ITV company premises than in any other way. Indeed, the prospect of setting up an entirely new operation, with new buildings, new equipment and newly recruited creative and technical staff, would be daunting in many ways other than finance. To be realistic, I believe that we must accept that the fourth channel, whatever form it takes, will operate through ITV production facilities.
Let us consider finance. Currently all broadcasting is going through what one might call a freak period in that money is temporarily not the problem. Colour television licences have boosted BBC income; but that will flatten out and the corporation already sees money trouble ahead. ITV is at the moment basking in a phase of buoyant advertising. Nevertheless, over the years money for the fourth channel will have to be found. I see no prospect or justification for a State subsidy, which, would have to run into many millions of pounds. The technical standards to which our viewers have become accustomed rule out the possi-

bility of any form of "television on a shoestring".
The various ideas put forward for finance from voluntary funds, trusts and so on simply do not stand examination in terms of paying for a major national channel. The Opposition had similar hopes for BBC local radio which came to nothing.

Mr. John Golding: Came to nothing?

Sir P. Bryan: Perhaps the hon. Member can explain what other alternative his party offers.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Member said that local radio has come to nothing. This would be a great surprise to many of my constituents who listen with great enthusiasm to Radio Stoke and to constituents of many other hon. Members. That it has come to nothing in other respects is only because the Government decided that there should be no expansion but that commercial radio should take it.

Sir P. Bryan: What I said had come to nothing were the ideas for financing local radio by voluntary funds. I believe that there have been isolated cases in which money has been raised voluntarily, but the proportion of the whole must be very low indeed, and it certainly has produced no hope of voluntary finance in the context in which I am speaking.
This leaves advertising as the only alternative for financing, and a very good alternative, too. I quite understand that hon. Members of the Opposition have a distaste for this method, basically because it suggests to them easy profits. If that is their main worry, a levy in some form or other will always be there to iron out the crests and the troughs. I hope that the levy now being considered by the Minister will take such a form that it will not in any way damage the programmes. Advertising in the form practised by IBA is efficient. Monitoring of advertisements before they appear is expertly done. I believe that the recommendations in this report which advocate discussion programmes about advertisements show a lack of knowledge of the severity with which advertisements are vetted. The ITV system for controlling advertising is a little known but highly effective instrument of consumer protection.
Add to these advantages the fact that on the whole experience shows that viewers do not object to advertisements, and advertising emerges as the most efficient, indeed the only available, method of financing the fourth channel.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: If advertising is an efficient method, why will the total revenue of the ITV companies this year be approximately the same as that of the BBC, out of which the BBC runs two television services and the whole of radio? Why is ITV running only one service at the moment? Where does the rest of the money go?

Sir P. Bryan: I have been talking not about administrative efficiency but about advertising as a method of financing. The point which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) has raised is relevant to a different subject and which perhaps we can debate at some other time.
If willingly or unwillingly, as the case may be, we can accept the inevitability of the fourth channel being produced on ITV premises by ITV creative staff and financed by advertising, we can then get down to discussing what really matters— the programmes to be produced—and in so doing we may be able to meet quite a number of the Committee's recommendations regarding programme control, experiments, research, increased opportunities for regional companies and so on.
The IBA has already shown in its proposals for ITV 2 for a programme planning board and its reactions to the Committee's recommendations that it is not rigidly fixed in its ideas either on programme content or programme control. There is an infinite variety of organisational arrangements that can be made to accommodate, say, some of the ideas of the National Television Foundation as described by Anthony Smith in his Guardian article in April last year, or of the TV 4 campaign.
If the current clamour for more access to television persists, no doubt the IBA could find ways of arranging this, but, before the Minister gives in to such pressure I would remind him that the viewer comes first. Under any system someone has still to judge who should, in fact, be given the opportunity to go on the air and whether he is likely to have a message to justify his appearance.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) that there exists a deprived class which has been denied access to broadcasting to the detriment of the viewer. We keep being referred to the Dutch model, where trades unions and other organisations have a right of access to the microphone and the camera; but no one has claimed that this has made for rewarding viewing. Our one experience of the right of access is the party political broadcast which is distinguished only by reaching the highest known turn-off rate. Have we any reason to believe that the trades unions, the CBI, or Jehovah's Witnesses will be any more successful in holding our interest?
The IBA is the logical host for the fourth channel, which should be produced by ITA companies and financed by advertising. The IBA, guided by the Minister, should decide the broad nature of the output and how this should be controlled. Before the Minister decides what he wants of the IBA, either in connection with the fourth channel or in general, I hope he will take careful note of the observations of the authority in Part II of the White Paper. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Feltham was so touchy about them, I consider that they are full of good sense and are admirably expressed. I hope that, in particular, he will respect the reluctance of the authority to go in the direction of its own programme making. It is not equipped to do so and to embark on such an undertaking would divert its effort from its primary duties. More harmful still would be the consequent blurring of responsibility.
As the White Paper says in paragraph 10—and I think the hon. Member for Feltham should have quoted rather more than the two or three words he read:
one cannot both hold the ring and enter the ring. Even were this not so, the Authority would not wish to see the companies' own responsibility for innovation lessened: if it became expected of the Authority that it should rectify any shortcomings by commissioning special programmes, there would be a tendency for those responsible for programme ideas in the companies more and more to cede this responsibility to the Authority.
The thinking behind the proposal that the ITA should take some of the responsibility for programme making from those naturally responsible is the same as that


behind the oft-produced idea that some new council or other body should be the final judge of whether or not a programme is, or was, fit to be broadcast. Once such a body exists, those properly responsible at every level through the programme companies and up to the authority itself are bound mentally to shed a little of their responsibility.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, agree that, although that may be the right course of action for ITV 2, it involves the companies in financial loss. He will recognise that this is a course which is financially unprofitable to the companies.

Sir P. Bryan: If that is so, it would appear that the companies are commend-ably altruistic in being willing to take this.
As to quality, I would stress the authority's contention that the creation of a programme of distinction is not merely a matter of deciding to do so. Granada has produced a series of plays called "Country Matters", which Sir Hugh Carleton Greene has described as:
… a series of outstanding merit and beauty, which would be remarkable not only in a poor year but in any year.
When those programmes were conceived, this sort of success was obviously hoped for and aimed at, but it was certainty not assumed.
As the authority says in the White Paper:
The Authority does of course accept that it is no more capable of ensuring an unbroken flow of fine programmes than universities are capable of seeing that all their pupils win first-class degrees. But it is its task to see that the opportunities are wide enough and the encouragement strong enough, that as many high quality programmes as possible are made, and that sub-standard work is firmly criticised.
One good reason for wanting to make good quality programmes is that it is the best guarantee of attracting and keeping the best creative staff.
Then comes the question of how to get the best out of that creative staff. The Committee agreed with the authority that quality is best achieved in a situation in which the programme companies and those who work for them have the freedom to produce the best creative output, but then the Committee asserts that this freedom would be increased by being

reduced—by the authority having greater control.
The relationship between the companies and the authority is delicate. It is certainly not correctly summarised by the sentence on page 161 of the report,
It is inherent in the system that the company should be the producer of programmes while the Authority is responsible for maintaining standards and quality.
On the question of programme balance, I consider that the Committee has under-appreciated the difference between running a single channel service and running a double channel service. Broadcasting, as it does, a single channel service, ITV has the same responsibilities to the public as the old BBC single channel service or sound radio, but it lacks the force of monopoly and is complementary to and competitive with the two BBC channels.
On a single channel service, there is a low limit to the size of one's audience, Below this threshold, it becomes actually wrong to broadcast material for the small minority groups at the expense of the broadcaster's duty to the whole of his audience. But once one has the use of a second channel the situation is transformed and the opportunities to experiment and to serve minority audiences present an entirely different and simpler problem.
Finally, may I say a word about the unique structure of ITV—a system comprising 15 regional production companies under the control of a central public authority. The ITV viewer in the regions receives his programme from no fewer and probably more, than seven different sources—the five network companies, the ITN, his own regional company and sometimes other regional companies as well. If that same viewer turns to BBC, he has the contrasting experience of two programmes, each coming from the same source.
The picture painted by ITV critics of five probably insensitive network programme controllers dictating in accordance with their own individual whims the entire output of ITV is simply untrue. These are five very different men from five very different companies, with no control over the vast news output of ITN or over regional production, guided by the requirements of the authority and of BBC competition. The authority is


right to attach importance to this plural system, which is likely, by its very nature, to be more sensitive to the public needs, and has indeed already provoked the BBC into taking more notice of regional viewers.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the autonomy of the regions. Would he not agree that when Anglia Television was disinclined, and indeed refused, to show the Warhol film it was obliged by a diktat inspired by the major programme companies, with the support of the IBA, to do so?

Sir P. Bryan: I am afraid that I cannot comment on that; I simply do not know what correspondence went on between the parties concerned.
I agree with the Minister that this is not the time for a full-scale inquiry. It is the time for a number of worth while and practical programme improvements such as the fourth channel can bring. In 1981 the situation may be very different. There will be more channels available. We shall know more about cable, satellite relay, domestic relay systems and local radio. These factors may combine to necessitate an upheaval of our broadcasting arrangements. In the meanwhile, let us be satisfied with improving our programmes.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I beg to move as an Amendment to the Motion, at then add
'but deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to implement the main recommendations in the Report and, in particular, the Minister's cursory dismissal of the Report's proposals for a full-ranging inquiry to be set up at the earliest opportunity to consider broadcasting after 1976'.
We put down this amendment because of the efforts expended by hon. Members on both sides on the preparation of the Select Committee Report. I should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and those hon. Members from both sides who put in so much effort to produce this excellent document. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the manner in which he presented it.
It is not often that we discuss the wider aspects of broadcasting, so when we do it seems valuable that we dis-

cuss it on the basis of an informative report such as that before us, which has been carefully prepared. I shall be commenting on some details of the report, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) will deal with other points later.
Although I was tremendously impressed by this report—saving my hon. Friend's blushes, I think that it is one of the best Select Committee reports that I have seen for a long time—I cannot say the same of the reply to it presented by the Minister and the observations contained therein.
I had thought first to say that the document was an insult to the committee and an affront to the House. Unhappily, and unusually for a Member of Parliament, I ran out of adjectives. Words failed me and I had to look to the newspapers to find an apt description of my feelings. I turned, as is my wont, to the Economist, a paper with which we sometimes do not find great favour on this side of the House. Speaking of this problem, it said of the Minister and his White Paper:
His White Paper must stand a good chance of taking the record for economy in sweeping aside the main proposals of a Select Committee, whose members must wonder why they wasted their time.
Indeed one might ask, why did they waste their time? If Members of Parliament are to serve for many weeks on a Select Committee and to prepare volumes of this sort only to have their observations swept aside in this way, we can wonder whether they will choose to serve on Select Committees in the future.
The White Paper also seems to be an affront to us all in that it contained— or at least I think it contained—the total sum of the Government's thinking on broadcasting in the future. On this matter the Minister uses an economy of words that surprises me. He succeeds in dealing with it in 10 paragraphs—and not very long paragraphs at that. He completely ignores the central point which has been made by the Members of the Select Committee on the need for an inquiry.
No doubt if we in this House are thinking of broadcasting in general terms there will be 630 different views on the matter. Television, whether it is BBC or IBA, has


something in common with Members of Parliament. We are only as good as our last speech and I suppose that television is only as good as its last programme to the individual viewer. We think of the programme companies and the BBC on the strength of the productions that are offered. While we all have strong views, what comes out loud and clear from those of my colleagues who spent so much time thinking about the problem is that they want a committee of inquiry. They put forward substantial reasons for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham asked whether a future Labour Government would think it necessary to have an inquiry into the future of broadcasting. I can give him a categorical assurance that if we have the good fortune to win the next General Election there is no doubt in my mind that such an inquiry would take place. It would be a wide-ranging inquiry and not one which would deal simply with the technical aspects of broadcasting. To put it in a phrase, it would be a sort of "super-Pilkington" which would look at the whole sphere of broadcasting and all the dimensions of it which we would hope to have in the latter part of the 1970s and in the 1980s.
It is useful to note that although our colleagues who served on the Select Committee and my hon. Friends have said that they want a committee of inquiry, we are not alone in coming to that judgment. Many trade unions concerned with broadcasting have likewise asked for an inquiry. I understand that even senior members of the staff of the IBA and the BBC would like some inquiry.
Moreover, The Times, which is often produced in the House, as if it were an oracle, said that it, too, would like an inquiry. There is, therefore, a wide range of opinion in favour of such an inquiry.
Why, therefore, did the Minister decide to ignore the views of the Select Committee? This genuinely offends many of us who take an interest in broadcasting matters. The Minister had made up his mind long before he read the Select Committee Report that he would not have an inquiry. To that extent my hon. Friends and others have wasted their time because the Minister had already made up his mind.
The reason he turned the idea down was not that he had any strong views of his own on the subject. The reason arises from a sentence in the course of the speech made by the Prime Minister on broadcasting in 1969. In a fit of instant opposition he said that there would be no inquiry into the future of broadcasting. I was amused by the expression that he used at that stage, he said
But there is little justification for once again pulling it all up by the roots in order to have another good look at it.
I do not know what the Prime Minister's hobbies are. I am told that he sails. Ke obviously does not garden because he does not know that it is not necessary to pull a tree or a bush up by the roots in order to see how it is getting on. One looks at the fruits and flowers to see whether it is producing anything of value, and that is the way we should examine broadcasting today. We could look at the products of our broadcasting services and determine from them whether or not any change should take place. Perhaps the Minister will tell the right hon. Gentleman that if there is ever a hole in his boat he does not need to turn it upside down to see it because the water will pour in and it will sink just the same. It is not necessary to turn everything upside down to see what is happening.

Mr. Tom King: The point that the hon. Member made is contradicted by the Select Committee's Report. It took the unanimous view that there was a need for greater stability in the industry and it recognised that there was stability to a certain degree. It is possible to look at a tree without affecting its growth in any way but if an industry is put under the spotlight for perhaps a year or two this in some way causes uncertainty and to a certain extent affects its stability. That was recognised by the Select Committee.

Mr. Mackenzie: The hon. Member has anticipated my point. I shall come to the question of putting a spotlight on the industry in a few moments.
The Prime Minister said something else at that time about an inquiry and about the need, or the lack of need for it. He said:
There is, however, a deeper point. There is no problem in broadcasting and television


which cannot be settled amicably and sensibly with the corporation and the authority by any Government. This they can do on their own." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December 1972; Vol. 792, c. 1511.]
That is something to which I think the Select Committee and many of us took exception. We feel very strongly that the public are from time to time entitled to express a view on the broadcasting organisations. Much of the concern about broadcasting springs in my view from the fact that the degree of public accountability referred to by the Select Committee is less in practice than it is in theory and that leads to frustration on the part of the consumer.
I know that it is difficult to achieve a balance between the rights of the viewer and the freedom of the producer or senior members of an organisation to put on programmes. However, the public are entitled once in a while to a say in the organisations which they properly regard as their own. It is not too often to have it every 10 or 12 years. The public are entitled to put their views to a committee and for the end product of that committee's deliberations to be the basis of a national debate.
That is something we have always wanted in this country—a debate on the whole structure of television in the future. That was the view of hon. Members who served on the Committee and it is a matter to which they gave a great deal of thought. We regret that the Minister paid so little attention to the problems of public accountability and participation. I always wanted an inquiry, even before publication of the Select Committee Report.
I want to know whether the structure financing of broadcasting is being done in the right way, whether sufficient resources are being made available to make good broadcasting, and whether we are using new techniques in broadcasting to the best advantage. Many hon. Members who concern themselves with these matters will know that I have raised this issue on a number of occasions and that I have strong views on all these topics. I hope that it will be understood that, while I want an inquiry to examine these aspects thoroughly and impartially, I do not want it only to confirm prejudices that I already have on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will deal with the structure of broadcasting but the financing of broadcasting is something that has greatly troubled many of us, and we have spoken at length about it in the last few years. Questions arise whether we are giving enough money to the BBC and, more important to many of us, whether we are doing it in the right way.
I do not think the BBC has enough money to do the job as thoroughly as I would wish it and I am not satisfied that financing through the licenced fee system is the right way to work. The independent sector of television talks about "rolling contracts" and I do not see why we cannot have the same kind of rolling commitment for the BBC. In other words, I should like the prospect of a direct grant from the Treasury at least examined by a Select Committee and yet preserving the independence of the authority by having some sort of built-in rolling commitment.
In any event the whole question of finance for public sector broadcasting has troubled hon. Members on both sides and is something that the Select Committee would want to look at. I do not say that simply because we want to get rid of some of the difficulties attached to the licence fee system, but it is worthy of a national committee's investigation.

Sir P. Bryan: Does the hon. Member consider that the BBC would welcome being financed by Government subsidy or grant?

Mr. Mackenzie: The whole point of my comment is that this issue should be the subject of an inquiry. Whether the BBC feels that this is the right way does not concern me now. I am advancing a view which I believe to be worthy of consideration. From time to time the BBC may not like what we do in the House of Commons but we should not be too sensitive about its feelings because it is capable of looking after itself.
Hon. Members on the Committee also looked at the new technologies that are available to broadcasting and they put forward a number of important considerations. That section of the report was particularly helpful to those of us who are laymen and are not used to all the technicalities of broadcasting. The Minister also looked at the technicalities


of broadcasting, and that seems to have been his whole reason for turning down the Select Committee Report and the suggestion that there was a need for a national inquiry.
I do not wish to sound churlish and ungracious to the public-spirited people who gave up their time and effort to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee, but for a variety of reasons, not least of them that the terms of reference of the committee were not as wide as I would have liked, the Technical Advisory Committee's Report of 1972 seemed to me a very great non-event. It was received as such not only in the House of Commons but in all the newspapers concerned with broadcasting, by the technical Press and by everyone else. In a purely personal sense I found it a disappointing document and I am sorry that the Minister has chosen to base his policy—or what there is of it—simply on this document.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham, in raising the question of the technicalities of broadcasting, mentioned cable television. That is something which worries many of us. It is a great new field and to say, as some do, that it is no part of our business to be thinking about it at this stage seems to me arrant nonsense. I welcomed the Greenwich experiment as an experiment in local television broadcasting, no more and no less, because I wanted to see how that would work. I do not want to see a mass of small stations grow up in that way. It would not be helpful, I want instead to see a nationally co-ordinated programme. So did the Select Committee, which grasped the tremendous potential of such a development.

Mr. Gorst: Would the hon. Member agree that to base the argument for delay on the Technical Advisory Committee's Report is rather like having delayed printing on the grounds that we needed a printing advisory committee's report? We might be relying on smoke signals today had that been the case.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has expressed himself well, and I hope that from the Conservative benches he will be able to persuade the Minister about some of these matters.
Bearing in mind the experiments that have been taking place in America and elsewhere, we should like to know who will produce the programmes, who will relay them and how they are to be financed. That is an area in which the Committee should have been concerning itself in a general way.
I believe that the Post Office has a major rôle to play in this area. We have been encouraged by the experiments at Milton Keynes and Irvine, and see the concept of the wired city as an exciting prospect.
I hope that the Minister will not close his mind completely to the concept of the wired city and the Post Office rôle in it. There are all sorts of exciting prospects in telecommunications, and he should study such prospects seriously. The Minister has a bounden duty to look at it. We all know that it is not something that is far, far away. It is with us now and there is tremendous interest in such developments. Through his contacts at international level, I hope that the Minister will produce something of value to the House, something we can discuss as aspects of the Technical Advisory Committee's Report. It is certainly worthy of further consideration. I am exceedingly disappointed that cable and satellite systems have just been pushed aside as though they belonged to the late 1980s and 1990s, and were not working effectively now.
The Minister's first reason for turning down an inquiry was what he said was the Technical Advisory Committee's recommendation. His next reason was that he did not wish to divert the attention of those engaged in broadcasting. It was put another way by the former Director-General of the BBC, who said that an inquiry was a very disturbing experience. I think that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) also thought that to have an inquiry was a very disturbing experience. From time to time I have a disturbing experience. I have to go before the electors in Rutherglen and explain what I have been doing during the previous Parliament and what I propose to do in the future. It is no bad thing in the processes of democracy to give an account of their stewardship, and to tell the electors what they want to do in the future.
If bodies have the massive control that is exercised by the BBC and IBA, which have tremendous power in their hands, I see no reason why they should not from time to time have the little disturbing experience of explaining their policies and telling people what they propose to do in the future.
The Prime Minister did not like the idea either. He said that to make people of creative talent write memos was far from thinking about. I like to listen to what the professional broadcasters have to say, but whether they are disturbed or unsettled does not occupy my every waking moment. If the Minister is concerned about disturbing the broadcasters, I can tell him that the strongest persuaders—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the creative people in broadcasting are the people who want the inquiry. They are not the people who will have to write the memos. It is the memo-writers, of which there are hundreds in the BBC, who are resisting an inquiry. They are precisely the people who should be made to write the memos.

Mr. Mackenzie: My hon. Friend anticipates my comment by just one sentence I was in the act of saying that those who had been strongest in trying to persuade me on my entry into discussions on broadcasting a couple of years ago that there should be a general inquiry were the people working in broadcasting, and I am indebted to them for expressing that point of view to me.
On all these matters the Minister refers to the advisory committee and says that we do not need an inquiry. He said that we do not want to disturb the broadcasters, that it would have a traumatic effect which would be far too much for them. "Therefore", he says, "I will just extend the charter and the Act of Parliament. For good measure, I have another reason. I have just appointed a new Chairman of the BBC, and you cannot have an inquiry into broadcasting for that reason." I do not understand that, and I am sure that many of my colleagues share that lack of understanding. I have heard and read many daft things in White Papers over the period of years that I have been in Parliament, but I have never heard a dafter explanation.
We all wait with bated breath to hear the Minister tell us why it should be necessary to extend the BBC's Charter without an inquiry, and to extend the Act of Parliament allowing commercial television to act as it does, simply because he has decided to appoint a new Chairman of the BBC. It took the Minister a long time to appoint the Chairman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must have looked around the country and found someone whom he thought to be particularly able. We should hope that as a result the new Chairman would have caught on to broadcasting a little faster than the Minister gives him credit for. We are curious about that part of the Minister's White Paper. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to satisfy our curiosity.
Having dealt with those points in his White Paper, the Minister tells us that the piecemeal approach to broadcasting is to be further developed, that we are to have two separate considerations, one on the fourth channel and the other on the provision of broadcasting services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England. We all want to know what terms of reference the right hon. Gentleman has for the committee to look into the matter. Two points are constantly put to me. A number of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members say, "Before we hear any talk about a fourth channel, before we decide whether it is to be for education, the Welsh language, an access channel or whatever, we must consider those who would like to have just one channel with a good picture on it."
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I put on my Scottish hat to tell the House that people in parts of Scotland, rather than worrying about the fourth channel, are worried about receiving a good picture on just one channel. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) and Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), representing all shades of opinion in the House, have been pressing the BBC and the IBA on the whole question of reception. It is very galling for people in certain parts of the country, and not just rural districts, to hear all the discussions about a fourth channel when they cannot get a good picture on one.
Will the Minister examine the competition in local radio? I understood his hon. Friend the Member for Howden to say that the purpose of commercial local radio was to have competition. We are to have a commercial radio station in the Glasgow area, but it will have no competition, because there is no BBC local radio operating in the area. The BBC operates a regional service. If competition is to be as general as the Minister has always suggested, what steps will be taken to provide a BBC local radio station to which we could turn if we did not like Radio Clyde?
Regional broadcasting in Scotland does not always appeal to me, and I suspect that people in other parts of the country feel the same about their regional broadcasting. Those of us who live in the industrial central belt of Scotland have no great desire to listen at peak times to the Gaelic news and farming news. There should be competition, and we shall all be interested to hear how the Minister will implement his election pledges.
I know that the points I have made about reception in Scotland and the kind of programme we have can also be made by my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Welsh constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), who has special responsibilities for Welsh affairs, constantly press upon me the need for better reception in many parts of Wales and an examination of the whole structure of broadcasting in that country.
Rather than being dealt with piecemeal in an independent committee set up by the Minister, all of these points should have been dealt with by the general inquiry envisaged in our amendment.
I have always believed that broadcasting in the future, and in the near future, offers an exciting prospect, and that those who are responsible for it should be a bit more adventurous than some of them have been in the past, and willing to make changes where they think them necessary. It should be the constant aim of all those involved in broadcasting to increase its value in entertainment, education and general communication.
They should also remember that criticism is meant to be helpful, especially from those of us who believe that broadcasting in this country is good. Many of us believe that it is much better than in most other countries.
The Minister has a very special care. He is the sponsoring Minister. He must be willing to listen to the critics and to appreciate that the people of this country believe that the BBC and the IBA are theirs, that they have a stake in them and want to play a part in shaping their future.
More in sorrow than in anger I have to say that the Minister will be remembered as the man who simply would not listen and did not want to do anything because he had no policy. This pathetic little document he has presented to us is no substitute for a policy. That is why we have tabled our amendment and that is why I call upon my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby tonight.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: It is a privilege for me, coming from the West Country, to find that my contribution is to be networked at a peak hour. That phrase will have some significance to those who know the television industry, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) who has in interest in Granada, one of the great companies.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) has proved one thing above all else and that is the limitations of the Select Committee procedure as a vehicle for discussion and debate. We are grateful to the Select Committee for the amount of evidence it amassed. It might well have produced several more books. It is probably for that reason that my right hon. Friend has taken the line he has taken in the White Paper.
The hon. Member for Feltham will not mind my saying, because I know him quite well, that he is kind and gentle in private life and no doubt at home but in politics he is a most rugged and robust performer—a thorough-going Socialist if ever there were one.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Thank you.

Mr. Cooke: So are his other hon. Friends who sat on this Select Committee. There is nothing to be ashamed of


in that. We all represent some pretty strongly held views and I will come to mine in a moment.

Mr. Russell Kerr: What about your chums on the committee?

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Member refers to my hon. Friends on the committee. No doubt they will answer for themselves. The report of the Select Committee has enabled my right hon. Friend to make his observations. They have been pretty viciously attacked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). If we examine my right hon. Friend's proposals with a bit more care and see what is possible within the scope of what he has said in the White Paper I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the situation is not perhaps as bad as he thought.
This report and the debate is much concerned with the image of ITV. This image depends upon the activities of the programme companies. There has certainly been an atmosphere of tycoonery and show business. One noble Lord said that having a contract was the same as having a licence to print money. No doubt for some people this was a fact at the outset. But some of the early risk-takers made heavy losses and there have been up and downs of a fairly violent nature.
The levy has been a source of difficulty and there are other matters which my hon. Friends and Labour hon. Members will no doubt wish to raise. The IBA, about which this report is largely written, has a less definite public image. I believe it would be fair to say that it did not present quite as good a case as it might have done. That was probably due to the limitations of our procedure. Some of the rather long-winded memoranda, of which the hon. Member for Rutherglen made fun, would not perhaps have been produced if there had been different vehicles for discussion between the interested parties.
That is why I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said in outline—and I hope that he will amplify it—about there being a continuing discussion. It is not perhaps quite what Opposition hon. Members might have wanted, but when they have heard a few of the things I have to say they may not be quite so un-

happy. The authority is far more powerful and exerts a firmer influence over the programme companies than many hon. Members imagine. It has the power of life or death over the companies. Their future depends upon their present performance.
The authority has had its failures and it is natural that attention should be focussed on them, particularly following a bad patch which the BBC went through towards the end of Lord Hill's term of office. Lord Hill had his successes at the IBA and at the BBC. Towards the end of his term at the BBC it came under some heavy fire. It is not entirely surprising that the authority in its turn should have come under heavy fire.
Each of the programme companies which created the image of ITV has a particular character. The characterless ones have disappeared or merged. This is a continuing process. There are those companies with the character, for example, of Sir Lew Grade, on the one hand, and Lord Bernstein, on the other hand. There are other well-known people, too. It is not just the big companies that have a character of their own.
Here comes the natural break for the "commercial" if the House wants to look at it in that way. I must declare my interest in that I have for the last two years or so been a non-executive director of Westward Television where I have seen at first hand how a regional company attempts to deal with the representation of immensely varied regional interests. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may find this amusing.

Mr. Golding: What I find amusing is seeing one Conservative Member after another having to get up and declare an interest and obviously speak in support of their own financial interests.

Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Member reads HANSARD and the Select Committee Report he will see that the financial interests of hon. Members are very slight indeed and that their public service interests are paramount. Practically every Labour Member who will take part in this debate will have to declare an interest of one kind or another. Nearly everyone who will speak is interested in one aspect of the industry or another. Some even have financial interests.

Mr. Mackenzie: The hon. Member cannot get away with that. He is making quite serious assertions that affect a great many of us in a personal sense. I, for one, resent that very deeply. It is offensive.

Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Member will allow me to proceed a little further he will find that I was not making an offensive remark. There are hon. Members who will take part in this debate who represent significant interests. I said that some have financial interests because they are sponsored by various organisations who want to have their point of view put over. This is no bad thing, because how can the House of Commons come to a conclusion on these important matters if we do not have people who have had experience of them?

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: It would so much enliven the debate if those who declare an interest were aware that this does not debar them from putting forward ideas that may be to their financial disadvantage or supporting ideas which may be to their advantage.

Mr. Cooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that point of view, although he has prolonged the debate and lengthened my speech. I shall come to certain aspects which are to the disadvantage of those with whom I am associated in the West Country, who are positively opposed to some of the things I want done. Hon. Gentlemen should not be so sensitive about this. To have such an interest enables me to know something about what I am interested in.
In passing, I mention Anglia Television, which has a particular regional character and is most notable for it, and there are others. The regional companies could make a much greater contribution if they had opportunities equal to those enjoyed by the BBC. It will be no surprise to hon. Members to hear that I advocate that the fourth channel should be firmly allocated to ITV, but with adequate safeguards which the IBA should well be able to exercise.
There is no doubt that with more scope there could be a far greater exchange of creative talent and a far greater dissemination of the good programmes that are being shown in particular regions. It is

no good if, after years of battle with the IBA and long interviews with Lord Hill the regional companies—in some of whom the hon. Member for Rutherglen is interested in a purely altruistic and not financial way—find that the networking of the regional programme concerned is at 10.30 in the evening. That is not good enough. The second channel would give far greater scope to the regions.
If my right hon. Friend has his way and extends the Act the IBA will have great freedom to innovate within the present structure of companies possibly, and within different structures if it so wishes. There will not be the constraint of fixed periods of contract. It will be possible to indulge in rolling contracts, so that options are kept open. There is no doubt that collaboration or perhaps mergers or overlap in the outlying regions could be of great advantage to all those taking part.
Following the provocation from the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) to put forward suggestions that are positively to my disadvantage, I say that those with whom I have been working in the far South-West have considerable misgivings about the effect of an ITV2. They wonder how they would find their place in it and whether they would be swallowed up. But they are prepared to have a go and to face the challenge. That I think would be the attitude of the other smaller regional companies.
The justification for the authorisation of ITV2 is to give a far greater opportunity for regionalism, and both sides of the House are together on that. They may not agree how it should be done but they want to see much greater debate going on in the regions and real people appearing on the television screens, instead of the professionals, semi-professionals and old hacks who can be guaranteed to turn out on any occasion. Phoney discussions with audience participation, where one person out of the 30 or 40 people present is allowed to jump up occasionally and is severely squashed if he says the wrong thing, are no good. We are moving away from it, and we shall get a great deal further away from it if we have another channel on the independent side of the industry.
We shall be able to see on that channel real people who lead or aspire to


lead all aspects of life in the regions. The democratic processes will be refreshed, and here the Opposition should applaud. We shall be able to see how good or how awful are those who are involved in local government. ITV2 would enhance the individual regional flavour and offer a wider choice. Minority interests and educational programmes would have far greater scope.
It is not surprising that echoes of the BBC have been heard throughout the debate. The BBC has not been idle in preparation for today and for the sequels to today. The BBC image is fairly widely discussed. With the advent of ITV, "Aunty" BBC in her anxiety to get "with it", cut some strange capers—some might say they were ridiculous. Yet the leaders of the BBC are eminently reasonable men of absolute integrity. Sometimes one gets a little of the flavour of those imaginery Whitehall mandarins, but the BBC is a somewhat bureaucratic institution.
I am sure that we all welcome the appointment of the new chairman, although he is allegedly being used as an excuse for certain things. Those of us who have met him have found that he is a man of outstanding character and good common sense, and we expect much of him. Nevertheless, in the view of many on both sides of the House the corporation is unmanageable, and there is criticism that as a result of what my right hon. Friend is proposing the restructuring of the BBC will be further delayed —the division of the corporation perhaps into two or three. Eventually these changes will come. I am not sure that this is such a missed opportunity as some would suggest, but I do not think that a Royal Commission is the answer.
Letting the charter run on has certain parliamentary disadvantages unless my right hon. Friend gives certain assurances. Perhaps he will think about this although he may not be able to answer today. The extension of the charter means, in parliamentary terms, that we shall have to say "Yes" or "No" to an extension. There will not be a detailed document to discuss and there will be no possibility of amendment. Any legislation for the IBA, however tightly drafted which is brought forward, will involve a fairly wide-ranging discussion. I hope that my right hon.

Friend will not present to the House a fait accompli, but that the House will know in advance what sort of BBC we are extending into 1981 and beyond. I hope that he will be able to say that the BBC and the IBA during the extension period will be co-operative in looking forward to a world in which we shall have at least six national television channels and the advantages of cable television.
On BBC finance, if the Opposition had their way we should have constant debate on the activities of the BBC. If there were a Treasury grant there would be at least an annual debate and many opportunities in the House to discuss the BBC, even its programme content. That might be a good thing in the eyes of some hon. Members but I hope they realise what the consequences would be. If present trends of rising costs continue there will be a demand from the BBC for a £25 television licence before the end of the period we are talking about. I suppose that this will be unacceptable to the public, so perhaps the need for economy would marvellously concentrate the mind. This may have some influence on the future development of the BBC.
But perhaps we do not need a licence fee. I do not favour what the hon. Member for Rutherglen suggested. The BBC have already flirted with sponsorship of one kind or another in programmes produced in conjunction with various commercial interests. I am not in a position to reveal what the financial arrangements were, but this was clean sponsorship and perhaps that would be a fruitful source of revenue.
I hope that we can look at the whole industry in perspective. We might ask ourselves why there is this endless debate about what to do in the case of television. After all, we do not debate the Press ad nauseam though we may discuss it amongst ourselves. Centuries ago we excluded journalists from Parliament. We have always been rather touchy about what they say about us. We have no television here. The best that could be done is a sort of rabbit hole owned by the BBC over in the Westminster Abbey garden where a Member of Parliament can be interviewed, as it were, down the line without being able to see who is talking to him. Perhaps as a beginning we might provide a studio somewhere


near here for all the channels where Members could take part in the realities of television even though they do not want cameras in the Chamber.
We do not debate the Press because we have a pretty fair balance and a wide clash of views. No journalist or any other would be contributor is denied a voice by way of the printed word.
Why is television so different? It is because of the near monopoly—a monopoly broken only after a great struggle. It is also because of the believed or alleged power of this comparatively new means of communication which certainly is all-pervasive. A lot of hon. Members believe that tighter control is the answer over this new means of communication. I take the opposite view. I believe that we must set it free at the earliest possible moment and that the first constructive step which could be made is to authorise another channel for the other side of the industry from the BBC.
I say a last word about bias. I suppose that most journalists, Press and television, are anti-establishment. They are creative people and they want to put across new ideas. Television is certainly biased. It is biased against boredom. Politicians who are bad at presenting their case and boring performers must expect to be ignored. Then there is a bias of omission, where the other point of view or another subject is not ventilated on television. How much better will be the chance to correct it if we have yet another channel. If it is said, "There ought to be a programme about this", there can be, if we have another channel.
Then there is endless discussion about complaints commissions or a broadcasting council. The BBC recently set up a new body. I have heard it described as "an elegant sham". The people who sit on it are men of absolute integrity who are well able to tackle any problem put before them. But their terms of reference are most restrictive. Where can they publish their findings? They have the right to have them broadcast. But where do they find the light of day? In the columns of the Listener. That is a useful magazine, but it is not very widely read by the great British public.
If we are to have a broadcasting council it will have to be more effective

than anything that we have at the moment. However, I believe that the answer lies in the other direction. We need to remove the fear of television by cutting its influence down to size. The more channels that we have, the better.
All this will be possible within the White Paper, and the debate will continue throughout this year and beyond. But how is my right hon. Friend to proceed? He has to march forward. He cannot go back. He has to take some action. He has to march along a path which is flanked by a veritable Yeoman of the Guard of axe-grinders. Private enterprise is grinding its axe for a wider choice, to dilute the influence of the present programmes, to provide greater opportunity, especially in the regions, and to get a fair and balanced view by a wider clash of opinions. I believe that it is a good case.
The institutionalists—and I do not need to say who they are—want the whole scene clogged up by a Royal Commission. Then there are the protectionists, the newspapers. Practically everything said in the Press about television is suspect. It depends whether the newspaper concerned has a big shareholding in television. Lastly, there are those who do not like television at all, and they will go to any lengths to prevent more of it.
At the end of the year I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be afraid to make some decisions. He has had ample advice. He will have had a number of inquiries. A Royal Commission would have delayed progress for years.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen referred to the "pulling up" argument. I recall an occasion not very long ago when my two children came to me carrying a promising plant from the garden which they had pulled up by the roots. When I asked them why, they said that they wanted to see whether it was growing properly—

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is the act of children.

Mr. Gelding: Vandals.

Mr. Cooke: I hear references to children and to vandals from the


Opposition. They are the people who want to do just this. However, they dress it up.
I am not ashamed to end by saying that I am thoroughly biased. I am biased in favour of freedom and of the widest possible choice. In the Middle Ages the established Church was against the printing press. Are we in 1973 to deny the people another channel of communication?

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Northern Ireland Assembly Act, 1973.
2. Mercantile Credit Act, 1973.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that we can have shorter speeches.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I have written for television for a number of years, but I hope that that will not disqualify me from contributing to the debate. I prefer to think that my experience as a contributor will supplement by own feelings as a viewer.
At the outset I must voice my regret that the Minister has not intervened earlier in the debate. It would have been of value to hear his comments on this admirable report of the Select Committee so that the House could have some guidance. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is the arch-exemplar of one who believes in laissez faire. He left his last post presumably because he was dissatisfied with the Government's policy of intervention and he has now moved into a position in which, though he may have hoped, with his well-known hostility to nationalisation, that he would be spared some of the moral crises that he found in

his previous post, he finds himself suddenly in a position where one of his major tasks is to provide a cloak of patronage for television companies which over the years have probably made more money relative to their investment than any other group of investors in the country.
Although the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) spoke about the losses made by some of the early entrants into television, in reality they made paper losses. Such was their investment in property under the benevolent care of a Tory Government who did so much to prosper the interests of property investors that now one has only to look at the premises of television companies to see that in terms of bricks and morlar they have resources and assets and have made real profits which are wholly disproportionate to any contribution that they have made to the country.
The Minister has turned down the idea of an inquiry. I can well understand why. Within his competence he exercises a potential patronage which would have made Walpole green with envy.
The Minister is in a position not only to dispense contracts, to give licences and to hand out resources—I do not mean in the way described by Lord Thomson when he spoke of a licence to print money—but to give real assets under the patronage which he exercises. This is a matter which should be carefully examined and studied by the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has declined an inquiry that we seek into one of the most important media that the country has ever known. We seek an inquiry into a means of communication whose impact is immediate. Its visual impact is such that on the day after a television programme has been shown in the playgrounds of the country, in the pubs and clubs, everyone is talking simultaneously about what was shown the night before.
This is not any ordinary media. It enters into the life of the country in a way that no other means of communication has ever achieved. For that reason, the Select Committee was concerned not only with the restructuring of the industry but with the means by which the medium of television could serve a useful social purpose.
One matter that has already been under-emphasised in the debate, although perhaps other hon. Members will emphasise it in the course of further discussion, is that television conditions the quality of our life. No other means of communication is so capable of transforming the way that people think and behave. Television is a school of manners, a school of conduct, and also a school of crime. For that reason, this instrument should be carefully examined by the House in the interests of the nation.
It is not enough to say, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, that the Government should not interfere. It is not enough to say that this is an area in which everyone should have as much liberty as possible to do what they like, because there is a point where liberty spills over into licence. For that reason, it is all the more important that this House should take cognisance of what is being done within the framework of the television industry, not only by commercial television, but by the BBC, because there is a kind of symbiosis between commercial television and the BBC. One organisation tends to assimilate itself to the other. The result is that what we decide today about commercial television will certainly have its impact and reflection on the BBC.
Therefore, we are not considering the Independent Broadcasting Authority in isolation. We are considering it as an essential element in a general medium of communication which comprises the BBC. The inquiry for which we ask, and which the Select Committee has suggested, would seek to establish exactly what is being done through this novel, indeed unique, means of communication which has so great an effect upon our society.
One of the paradoxes of the world in which we live is that whereas, on the one hand, we have constant exhortations, even on television, from the clergy, from the police and from our educators against violence in our society—we have witnessed an increase in mugging and in all crimes of vicious violence which have characterised the last few years—on the other hand, we see these activities promoted night after night in a sort of night school of crime and violence on television.
My charge against the Independent Broadcasting Authority is not simply the way that it has allocated licences, the means by which the organisation is run, or even the fact that it has neglected to proliferate committees to safeguard viewers against different things, but that it has failed to carry out the duties imposed upon it by Parliament. I do not believe that the IBA has upheld the criteria incorporated in the Television Act. I hold the right hon. Gentleman responsible—perhaps I should also put the blame on his predecessors—for having failed at an early stage to curb some of the excesses which have occurred on television.
It can and may be said that much of the violence which is shown on our screens is imported from the United States. I understand that a certain quota of importations is tolerated. Nevertheless, the American way of life, which has many admirable aspects, in the area reflected by crime programmes should not be imported because it has a pernicious effect on the quality of life in Britain.
It is obvious that if, night after night, children are exposed to this kind of instruction—I do not necessarily mean the detailed instruction portrayed on some crime programmes—where the lawless man, even though a thug in fancy dress and Western uniform, is made a hero of society, inevitably we shall get a public state of mind in which these demeanours will be imitated. Has the Minister, in the exercise of his authority, ever intervened with the IBA or its predecessor to try to tame and diminish some of the excesses to which I have referred?
Many years ago I recall going to see Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick and complaining, even then, about the nature of violence on our screens. I was asked what remedy I would propose and whether it was not the case—this is a stock argument—that violence occurs in classical drama, in Shakespeare, and so on. But television, with its instrusive and gloating lenses, is capable of presenting violence in ways which were never thought of before. It is capable of introducing a vast public to expressions of crime and to forms of sadism which an earlier generation would never have tolerated. Indeed, I suggest that not since public executions


has the British public been exposed more directly to the representation of violence and horror than it is today. All this has flourished under the protective cloak of the IBA. If that seems extreme, I invite hon. Gentlemen to consider some of the scenes of violence which are the nightly pabulum of our children and to consider whether there is a kind of schizophrenia in cur society in which, on the one hand, we have the constant exhortation of Government, preachers, and police against violence while, on the other hand, night after night we have the impact of the scenes that I have described.
I am certainly not in favour of censorship by a body that would proscribe on political grounds anything that might be shown. But I draw the Minister's attention to the existence of the Television Act which has established certain criteria. It is no good the television companies multiplying codes of conduct and then saying, when charged with tolerating the representation of crime and violence on our screens, that they have introduced these codes of conduct for the producers. If these codes are not respected by the performers they might just as well not have them, because that is whitewash.
The right hon. Gentleman should have paid special heed to what was said by the Select Committee about the quality of programmes. It would have been desirable for him to pay some attention to those who offered their testimony as members of the Free Communications Group. Although I do not believe in a syndicalist approach to television—indeed I do not think there is any particular reason why people working in an industry which serves the public should be given preferential treatment in determining the policy of those undertakings—I believe that there should be much wider participation in the administration and running of the companies by those who are technically responsible for and who play their part in the industry.
In my judgment, those who are technically responsible for the industry, the people who produce the programmes and who are engaged in the physical projection of television programmes, are incomparable. I have seen television in many parts of the world, and technically we have elevated our programmes and productions to an extremly high level.

But that is not enough. What is important, as has been underlined by the Select Committee in its recommendations, is that there should be a greater regard for the quality of programmes—not simply technical quality but the quality of life that is represented in those programmes.
It was McLuhan who said that the medium was the message, and never before has there been any medium capable of entering so directly into the lives and experience of those towards whom it communicates. For this reason the right hon. Gentleman cannot detach himself from the responsibility for whether the IBA has fully carried out those duties of establishing and preserving criteria which have been established by Parliament. Therefore, I am asking for an inquiry, not simply into whether in future there will be a greater care in issuing licences, but for an inquiry into the whole quality of television and the way of life projected by television.
I wish to refer briefly to the Warhol programme which caused so much controversy. I have said on other occasions that I do not believe in censorship even of extremely bad programmes, although I think that pernicious programmes should not be tolerated. But in the case of the Warhol programme the Anglia Television Company declined to show it. The reason it gave was that it thought the programme sleazy, inadequate and contrary to public interest. Then, after some debate, a combination of the IBA and the network companies insisted that Anglia should show the Warhol programme.
Anglia Television has an extremely high standard and reputation and has consistently sought to represent a quality of life which most of us would commend. Yet in the extraordinary situation over Warhol the IBA took upon itself the task of obliging the company to present a programme which it had condemned because it felt that it would undermine the quality of life.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend not agree that if there were not mandatory scheduling of documentaries by the IBA, timorous companies would often wish to opt out of good or controversial programmes? He will appreciate that the Select Committee commended the IBA's intervention on Warhol.

Mr. Edelman: I differ from my hon. Friend on that point. The whole point of regional broadcasting is to permit the regions to have a certain degree of autonomy. If there is to be a situation in which a central organisation, such as the Independent Broadcasting Authority, dictates to the regions what they must show irrespective of their own regional judgment as to its propriety, suitability or desirability, the whole question of regional broadcasting becomes a sham. For that reason I believe that the IBA abused its powers by forcing Anglia to show a film of which it strongly disapproved.
The BBC and ITV are closely involved because they must follow each other in pursuit of a mass audience. It is the pursuit of a mass audience—a condition which derives from the commercialisation of television—which has debased programmes. When people are sitting at home drinking cups of tea, what most catches their attention on the television screen is a milk bottle thrown through a plate-glass window. That is the technique of trying to hook an audience on a programme. It gives a traumatic shock to the viewer, and violence is one of the major means by which this is achieved.
If the Government consider television to be not simply a matter of organisational structure but something which can either contribute to the quality of life or degrade it, they must set up an inquiry into the effect of some of the programmes which have been shown. It has been established in the United States that a child who has reached the age of 18 has spent about 20,000 hours in viewing television and about 10,800 hours at school. That is a measure of the instructive quality of television and is a measure of the impact of television.
The need for the future relates not merely to security for television companies to be able to plan their programmes. The need for the future relates to security for our children who will have to grow up living with this medium. And it is up to us to see that the quality of life which they inherit will be worthy of them.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I join with those who have

already expressed regret at the Government's decision not to have a full inquiry into the future of broadcasting and, instead, to proceed with a temporary extension of the Charter and the Television Act.
It is wrong for the Government to suggest that there is no great demand for an inquiry. I believe that the reverse is true. Because of the lack of a properly-sponsored governmental inquiry, people throughout the country who are concerned about broadcasting, whether they be professionals within broadcasting or those who look at the matter from an academic standpoint, are setting up their own inquiries. We look forward with interest to the report by the Social Morality Council which is expected at the end of this year. We also note the setting up of the Standing Conference on Broadcasting. Both these moves are signs of considerable concern about the future of broadcasting.
Hardly a weekend passes without hon. Members who are interested in broadcasting being invited to symposia or discussions on the subject. It appears that broadcasting is a topical issue with everybody except the Government. It is a great pity that the Government have taken this mistaken policy decision, and for this reason I and my colleagues will support the Opposition amendment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) about the inadequacy of the report of the Television Advisory Committee. It underestimated not only the fairly short-term possibilities of cable developments but the dangers of such developments.
The whole future technology of direct wire services, not only for television but for meter reading and other Post Office purposes, is a major issue. There is no point in deferring detailed discussion and examination of the possibilities and establishing a long-term view of what our national policy will be on such developments. It is a mistake to say that, because there may be no substantial technical advance before 1976, we should not now begin with a detailed and authoritative examination. That is extremely important.
One of the major issues which such an inquiry should consider is not which authority should get the fourth channel


but, before that stage is reached, whether we need a fourth channel. I join with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, in stressing that priority and importance should be attached to the development of the existing three channels. Many people at present are unable to receive the services for which they pay by licence fees and by the cost of products advertised on commercial television.
That is no minor matter. It is a source of considerable aggravation that, every time a new service is introduced, it starts and becomes available first in London and then is gradually extended, over some years, to the furthermost parts of the country. As I said recently during Question Time, it is time that a distinct policy decision was taken to start new developments at the opposite end of the country. That would give the people who have footed the same bill as others some advantage in broadcasting facilities. So far they have had all the disadvantages of facilities which arrive late in the day.
There should be detailed discussion about whether there is a need for a fourth channel, not only in the context of direct wire development but on the philosophical query of whether more television is desirable. We have only to look at the United States to see that a great quantity of television does not necessarily lead to greater viewer satisfaction or a genuine choice of quality. There must at some stage come a limit to the sheer quantity of television output which it is worth having. These are major issues which should be the subject of an independent authoritative inquiry.
If the conclusion is that we are to have a fourth channel, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen about the future financing of the BBC must be considered. There may be a strong case for a fourth channel to be under the control of the IBA. That should not necessarily and automatically mean that it must be a commercial television channel. Equally, the BBC must not for all time be devoid of any commercial element. It is possible that one television channel or one radio channel could be operated by the BBC with commercial sources to meet the expense of the medium. That is not a popular view, but, if we are to have a balance within competitive broadcasting, we will not have such a balance as long as one side

of the broadcasting network is completely commercial and the other side completely non-commercial. I hope that steps will be taken later to set up an inquiry.
I hope that the Government will continue to resist the attempts which are made quite regularly, within this House as well as outside, for some superstructure of control over and above the IBA and the board of governors of the BBC.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) referred to the Warhol incident. He may have been incorrect in making the precise criticisms which he made of the IBA. As the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said in an intervention, if it is the case that the regional companies' contract with the IBA was to show a series of documentaries at a particular time, the system will be wrecked if one company is allowed to opt out of a certain documentary. However, I agree that it is the responsibility of the IBA, particularly if individual companies within it are objecting to a particular programme, to assess whether it is right to proceed with the showing of that documentary. I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North that the responsibility lies with the IBA. Of course, we can never expect the IBA to be a totally faultless body, just the same as we cannot expect that any Government or Parliament will be faultless.
We must accept, if the system is operated by the IBA, that occasionally mistakes will be made. I did not see the Warhol programme and, therefore, I am not prepared to say that a mistake was made. I believe it is a generally and widely held view that it is wrong for well-known buccaneers like Mr. McWhirter and others to try to remove such situations. Matters are only made worse when there is interference and an attempt to try to superimpose something else on the responsibility of the IBA, just as the BBC made a mistake in setting up its three wise men instead of limiting the responsibility to the board of governors.

Mr. Edelman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for agreeing with me in part. The Warhol episode arose because Anglia decided that it would like to opt out of showing the film. I had seen the film and I could sympathise with its


desire to opt out. Would the hon. Member, with his Liberal conscience, say that the cash nexus is more important than the exercise of conscientious objection?

Mr. Steel: I shall not put that forward as a statement. The possibility of conscientious objection is one that should have been hammered out between the IBA and the commercial companies. In that regard the hon. Member for Coventry, North is raising a genuine point for discussion.
It is not possible to say in retrospect that the IBA was wrong in principle. However, it was wrong in principle to show the programme. Once there is an arrangement to show documentaries on a network, that arrangement is destroyed if, after the companies have agreed to have network programmes, a company is allowed to opt out. The responsibility must rest with the IBA as well as the companies concerning what they show and what they decide not to show. It is right that they should be encouraged to have wide discussions with those who are employed in television, with the public, the Press and with Parliament about the way in which they arrive at a decision and as to the examples of decisions which they take.
On a personal note, I commend the action of Sir Lew Grade who invited some hon. Members to watch a documentary which his company, and not the IBA, had decided not to transmit. It was a riveting and an excellent piece of television. It was a documentary on the life of Michael Collins which the company decided it would not be appropriate to transmit. The company's willingness to extend the discussion a little wider than that of the company itself is a good thing and something which we should encourage. I do not in any way suggest that someone outside the television authorities should start bringing in quantities of literature and advice.
There is a reference in the Select Committee's Report, and in the reply to it, to the rôle of the regional companies. One slight defect in the independent television network at present is that there is not the same flexibility of interchange of programme facilities between the companies—particularly between the small companies and the large companies and

vice versa—as there is in the BBC network, with its complete control of studios throughout the country. That is one area where the recommendations of the Select Committee are extremely important. It is not a major controversial issue but it would be useful if the companies were encouraged to lend their facilities to each other on a much greater scale than they do at present rather than regard each programme company as being in competition with its fellow companies.
It is right that we in this House should press the Government to support the views and findings of the Select Committee. It is wrong in principle in any case that the Government should be allowed to get away with turning down a principal recommendation of a Select Committee of this House on such a flimsy argument as that contained in the Minister's observations. For that reason, it is right and proper to vote against the Government tonight.

6.20 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecom-munications (Sir John Eden): I hope that hon. Members will feel it appropriate for me to intervene at this stage. It has been extremely interesting to listen to the debate so far. I have recognised speeches of some considerable value and also speeches of some considerable criticism. Of course I will remain during the remainder of the debate to hear what other hon. Members have to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) described some of the speeches by Labour Members as being very critical. Of course they have been. They have been critical on two grounds. The first is that the principal recommendation of the Select Committee has not been accepted by the Government. The second is the form in which my observations were given. This point was also made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel).
It is important to recognise—I say this in answer to the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie)— that the White Paper was not seen to be, and certainly was not intended to be seen to be, a comprehensive declaration of Government policy on broadcasting. What was in the Government's White Paper


was a formal statement of the Government's observations on those recommendations of the Select Committee which were specifically directed to the Government. Hon. Members who look back over previous White Paper observations by the Government of the day on a Select Committee Report will find that it is reasonably traditional to be fairly staccato in such observations in printed documents.
I am grateful that the normal procedures of the House have enabled a full-scale debate to take place, because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate on one or two comments made in public documents.

Mr. Gorst: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the staccato comment made about the delay in any change in broadcasting for eight years is not the final word? It seemed to me like a very definite statement of Government policy as I read it in the White Paper.

Sir J. Eden: That is certainly a statement, but my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to hear further words from me on the subject in a moment.
The main recommendation of the Select Committee called on me to establish now a comprehensive inquiry into the whole future of broadcasting after 1976. An important part of the Committee's argument was that there should be a widespread and informed public debate about the future of broadcasting. I agree with that. I am sure that anyone who has a point of value to contribute should be given the opportunity to do so. Decisions affecting the development of broadcasting in this country need to be based not "on an analysis of past performance or on an assessment of prospects for any particular sectional interest but on a judgment of what is in the best interests of viewers and listeners as a whole.
The recommendation of the Select Committee is one way by which this might have been achieved, but it is not the only way. Whatever the merits of having a comprehensive review from time to time, it is not a good idea to do it too often. The plain fact is that the date 1976 was coming to assume an importance which it never really had. It

seemed to me that some people were becoming quite mesmerised by it.
But 1976 has become irrelevant. As the title of the Select Committee's Report recognises, Parliament has recently enlarged the functions of the Independent Broadcasting Authority so that it is now responsible for independent local radio as well as for independent television. This is a most important new development which has attracted widespread interest and which offers the prospect of a significant additional service for the listener. It will start this autumn and I am sure that, whatever the individual views may have been during the passage of the Sound Broadcasting Act, the whole House will now join me in wishing it well.
It would have been absurd, having so recently launched a new service, immediately to bring it within the compass of a review. It must be given time to get established. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred briefly to the question of rolling contracts. It is a fact that the authority will be able to gain some experience of rolling contracts from their application to independent local radio and if, as I hope and expect, this is a success the authority will, I am sure, wish to adopt the system for independent television, as the Select Committee has recommended. The extending legislation when it comes forward, like" the present legislation, will allow the authority to do it. The legislation will be in the form of a Bill to extend the lifetime of the IBA, and in relation to the BBC Licence it will be in the form of an order before the House.

Mr. Gorst: Could my right hon. Friend explain what has happened since we spent many months discussing the Sound Broadcasting Act, querying the reason why the Act was to terminate in 1976 and the Government's publication of the White Paper? At the time we were given to understand that 1976 was sacrosanct.

Sir J. Eden: I think that, as my hon. Friend hears me deploy my case, by the end of my speech he will have a greater understanding of these matters than he appears to have at the present time.
The Government's view that no full-scale inquiry is necessary at this moment was also influenced by the conclusion of my Television Advisory Committee that


new technical developments were unlikely to have a significant impact on broadcasting until the early 1980s. The committee included representatives of the radio industry and also independent members who would have no interest in maintaining the status quo. Its technical sub-committee, whose detailed studies will be published shortly—the report has not yet been made available to hon. Members but we are pressing ahead with it—included experts drawn not only from my Department and from the BBC and the IBA, but from the programme companies, the relay companies, the radio industry, the Post Office and the Department of Trade and Industry and also two independent members.
The programme of detailed studies for the sub-committee was described in paragraph 4 of the report, and it is relevant to the arguments put to me that I should remind the House of what the programme was. It was for a reappraisal of the problems and costs of extending the coverage attained by the UHF services until it is virtually complete; an estimate of the period of time for which VHF bands I and III must continue to transmit the obsolescent 405-line services; an appraisal of the scope for redeployment in due course of those bands for television services using 625-line definition; an assessment of the technical problems involved in establishing a service of television broadcasting from satellites, with an estimate of the costs involved in transmitting and receiving such a service: consideration of the methods by which cable networks might be used for distributing television into the home on a general and widespread scale, and the rate at which the development might take place; and finally an appraisal of the likely effect on broadcasting of the domestic and other use of equipment for recording material for reproduction on ordinary receivers.

Mr. Golding: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the criticisms of the report that it was disappointing because the terms of reference said that the sub-committee should consider cable networks on a general and widespread scale? Many of us have argued that cable might by its nature have been considered in terms of a build-up of localities.

Sir J. Eden: I was not commenting on the actual terms of reference. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the committee was set up by my predecessor. The point I was making was that the study group, the particular technical subcommittee, was specifically charged to cover these particular aspects and it was on this that the report of the Television Advisory Committee was based. Therefore, some of the criticism which has been levelled against it has assumed that it was saying things about matters which it did not, and in fact was not required to look into.
I will come to the question of cable in a moment or two because I want to deal with some of the points that have already been raised on that.
In January 1971 the TAC was asked by my predecessor to consider how far the exploitation of transmission and recording techniques available or likely to become available would be likely to proceed in the period after 1976. I think it would have been fairly easy for Sir Robert Cockburn and his colleagues to produce a headline-catching report which held out the prospect of all sorts of exciting changes just around the corner, but they very wisely resisted the temptation, if indeed it was there. Instead they made an expert and realistic assessment of the likely technical developments, thereby ensuring that the future of broadcasting was not to be considered against a background of prophetic assertions and wishful thinking. The committee has not said that developments such as direct broadcasting from satellites or video cassettes will never have an impact on broadcasting as we know it today. What it has said is that these developments are unlikely to have a significant impact during the present decade.
That is why I concluded that changes in the structure of broadcasting during the 1970s are not made necessary by any immediately foreseeable technical developments. Changes may well be necessary in the decade that follows, and it seems right, therefore, to enable the whole position to be reconsidered in a few years' time when the technical outlook for the 1980s will be a good deal clearer than it is at the moment.
One of the things some people tend to forget when they ask, for example, for


more and more television services is that more and more for some areas—usually London and the larger cities—might lead to less and less for people in the rural areas. We have heard the plea on their behalf echoed in speeches today by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles.
The House will recall that the other main conclusion of the Television Advisory Committee was that the first priority should be to complete as soon as possible after 1980 the coverage of the UHF 625-line television service. In the 1950s television services were provided on the VHF 405 lines. Later, BBC2 was broadcast on a higher definition standard, 625 lines, and dual-standard sets which could receive 625- and 405-line pictures were necessary.
In 1967 the Government of the day decided that BBC1 and ITV should be duplicated on UHF and 625 lines, and so the industry was able to produce a cheaper and more reliable UHF 625-line-only set. But until the UHF 625-line coverage matches that already attained on VHF it is the fact that some viewers will have to rely on the 405-line transmissions and will need sets which can receive them. The production of dual-standard sets is already being phased out and, in the industry's view, will be uneconomic after 1975. This means that the extension of UHF coverage is a matter of increasing urgency.
Hon. Members whose constituencies do not yet receive UHF signals will be well aware that the UHF programme is a major project which the BBC and the IBA have undertaken jointly. Already UHF services are provided to some 90 per cent. of the population. But over 400 more stations will be needed to bring UHF to a further 8 per cent. of the population. Both my Department and the two broadcasting authorities are giving top priority to the extension of UHF coverage. In doing this we are now reinforced by the findings of the Television Advisory Committee which indicated that, since it will still take some time to complete this programme, it would be sensible to get to 1981 before considering the redeployment of the VHF channels, which would then become a possibility.
In recent years other claims have been made which, if they were to be met, could have the effect of diverting the broadcasting authorities' resources, in terms of both investment and expertise, from the UHF extension programme. Among these claims are those for changes in Welsh broadcasting and a number of other specific problems, such as the provision of independent television to Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Norfolk, about which we had such a spirited debate just before the House rose for the recess. There are, therefore, conflicting claims from various parts of the country on the broadcasting authorities' resources.
To a large extent the problem is one of establishing priorities and on this the Government considered that independent advice would be valuable. This is why we have decided to commission an independent study of coverage of the broadcasting services in Scotland, Wales. Northern Ireland and rural England. The Government attach a great deal of importance to the work of this group. Its extended terms of reference will be:
Taking account of the Report of the Television Advisory Committee and the Government's intention to consider separately whether the frequencies available for a fourth television channel should be allocated, to examine the Broadcasting Authorities' plans for the coverage of television and sound broadcasting services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England, bearing in mind the particular needs of the people in those areas; to consider the priorities to be observed in the implementation of those plans and the allocation of resources; whether any improvements to the plans are feasible and, if so, with what financial implications; and to make recommendations.
Those are to be the full terms of reference of the independent study group which I announced it was the Government's intention to set up when I made my observations on the report of the Select Committee.
I am glad to say that Sir Stewart Crawford has agreed to be chairman of the independent study group. I shall announce the names of the other members very shortly. The group will begin work as soon as possible and will, I hope, be able to report early in the New Year.
The White Paper announced that separate consideration is being given to the question of a fourth television channel. The Select Committee had recommended that no decision should be taken


on the allocation of the fourth channel except as part of a general review. However, given the decision not to have a general review at the present time, it does not seem reasonable to put off until 1981 a decision whether the fourth television channel should be allocated and, if so, to what kind of service. I take the opportunity once again to stress as strongly as I am able that there are two questions for decision and not just one.
It could be that the conclusion we shall put before Parliament will be that there should be no allocation of this very scarce resource for the time being. In coming to a decision on this very important matter I intend to take account of as many views as possible. A number of organisations, such as the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the unions and the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, have already published their own proposals. Others, like the Social Morality Council to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles referred and which includes this subject in its current study of the social effects of broadcasting, are preparing their suggestions now.
The main options which have been identified are, I think already well known to hon. Members who have followed these matters. They are an ITV2, relying wholly or largely on present ITV contractors and providing programmes complementary to the existing ITV1 service— this is the sort of proposal to which reference has been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) and Bristol, West—or an ITV2 with different contractors and providing competing programmes. Yet another is that it should become an educational channel, and lastly there is the option that there should be a fourth channel service independent of both the BBC and the IBA.
I should welcome views on all those ideas. There is no need for people who have put in suggestions to me to do so again, but if there are others who feel that they have constructive suggestions to make I should be glad to hear from them, if possible, in order to enable me to carry out this work, before the end of July.
As I have already made clear, before the House is asked to agree to the exten-

sion until 1981 of the enabling instruments of the broadcasting authorities proposals concerning the fourth channel will be available to it. While I should obviously be unwise to predict exactly how long my study of this matter will take, I hope to make substantial progress with it during the remaining part of this year.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My right hon. Friend said that two options were open if the independent part of the industry were to handle the fourth channel: either to use the existing contractors or to have new ones. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widely-held view that a synthesis of the two ideas might produce a solution? Use could be made of existing contractors, and perhaps some new ones, and it might be a continually evolving process under the wing of IBA.

Sir J. Eden: One could devise a number of permutations. I was not seeking to be comprehensive in my list of possible options but merely highlighting the principal ones which I think are widely recognised as such by hon. Members generally.
I think that I should say something about cable television. Although the Select Committee's report does not refer to cable television in the summary of its recommendations, it records the Sub-Committee's study of evidence from the United States and Canada as showing that the development of cable television will be of great importance. I agree with that.
The Television Advisory Committee did not, as has been suggested in some quarters, recommend against the growth of cable television. On the contrary, it found that it would continue to grow and that techniques now available could be used to provide local as distinct from national or regional programmes, whether by developments in existing wire distribution systems or by the provision of new systems. It may not be generally realised that Britain pioneered the use of cable networks as a means of distributing radio and television services and that by now about one home in 10 relies on cable in order to get television. That number is growing.
Until recently the cable companies have not been licensed to originate their own programmes, but only to distribute the programmes of the broadcasting services. There was, it is true, the experimental pay television service which ended


in 1968. But now we are at the beginning of very interesting local television experiments. There are five of these. One, in Greenwich, has been running since last summer. Another, in Bristol, will be starting a fortnight from today. Later this year, services will start in Sheffield, Swindon and Wellingborough. It will be most valuable to have the benefit of these experiments, but local interest programmes of this kind are not technically the only kind of programme that cable networks can carry.
The Incorporated Society of British Advertisers has proposed to me that cable networks should carry advertising. As many hon. Members will know, the Cable Television Association, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayreshire (Sir F. Maclean), has advocated that cable operators should be authorised to provide a much wider range of services: distant British and foreign television programmes which cannot be received locally, access for minority views, local arts, pay television, adult education programmes, repeats of broadcasting programmes, advertising and many other kinds of service.
The justification for developing cable television will be if it can bring the viewer not an alternative way of getting something which he already gets from the broadcasting services but something extra which he does not now get and which the broadcasting services do not give him. That is the way in which I should like to see it developing, and I shall be discussing with the broadcasting authorities, the Press, the cable television operators and other organisations interested how it can be encouraged to do so.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the right hon. Gentleman authorise before 1981 at least some experiment in the importation of distant signals? I am thinking of a cable system located at Liverpool which may wish to import signals from Telefis Eireann for the Irish population in the area. This could be done immediately, without great inconvenience, if the Post Office and the Ministry would allow it.

Sir J. Eden: I do not wish to brush aside the point made by the hon. Gentleman but I should like to leave that until I have carried my studies of this matter a little further. During the coming

months I shall increasingly be engaged in having important discussions, and I do not want to come to any prejudg-ment on the exact way in which the developments of the potential of cable television should be encouraged.
The Cable Television Association recognises that its proposals need to be considered carefully, and I shall welcome comments on them as soon as possible. It would be particularly helpful if such comments could be made before the end of July. I see no reason why, if any organisation or individual has any comments to make on the association's proposals, they should not be openly stated so that they can be the subject of wide public debate. In due course, along with the other matters to which I have already referred, the Government's proposals for cable television will be brought before Parliament.

Sir P. Bryan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that time is not on the side of the cable relay companies? As transmission over the air improves, so the necessity for relay services is diminishing.

Sir J. Eden: I accept that time is pressing, and that is one reason why I have decided to go ahead with my discussions immediately and to bring them to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, if there had been a general inquiry—as had been advocated—it would have taken two years, and possibly longer, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said, the whole of the development in the broadcasting field would probably have been delayed for all that time.
The Select Committee made a number of important observations about the authority's relations with the public and about the need to consider some form of consumer organisation. Indeed, the Committee went so far as to suggest, though without actually strongly arguing in its favour, that there should be a single organisation for all communications media. That would present it with an almost impossible task. Its functions would be much too diverse for it to be effective. But there is, in any case, a most important distinction to be drawn between the broadcasting authorities, whose members are appointed as trustees of the public interest in broadcasting and,


as the debate has shown, are answerable to Parliament, and the Press, which is composed of commercial firms with formal responsibility only to their shareholders. The House will recall that, in another context, the Younger Committee on Privacy accepted that distinction as a valid one.
The analogy with nationalised industries, though closer, is again not exact. I think we must be wary of establishing new bodies whose functions to some extent duplicate those of the authority. Nevertheless, I certainly recognise that there has been a demand in recent years in broadcasting, as in other fields, that the consumers should play a larger part in decisions about the services provided for them. I am already having discussions with the BBC and the IBA about the ways in which viewers' and listeners' interests can best be represented. I would welcome views on this from other organisations, from hon. Members and from members of the public, and hope that they will write to me to let me have their views before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
It is worth while underlining, as did the Select Committee, that broadcasting services are provided for the benefit of viewers and listeners. They are not for the benefit of the programme companies or of the broadcasters. That is the basis of present legislation. The Television Act makes the IBA independent in the day-to-day conduct of its business, but it also makes it ultimately responsible to Parliament. Its annual report is presented to Parliament so that we can consider whether it is carrying out the duties which we have laid upon its members.
The traditional independence of the broadcasting authorities from the Government may give some people the impression that this is a mere verbal formula and that, in practice, the authority is responsible to no one. That is not the case. The work of the Select Committee, and indeed this debate today, make that very clear. It is right that hon. Members should express their views on the authority's performance of its duties, because we represent the people for whom the authority provides its services.
That does not, of course, mean that Parliament—or the Government—should

seek to do the authority's work for it. However, I know that close attention is paid to what is said in this House, especially, for example, to the constructive speech which we had from the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). I would not hesitate to draw the authority's attention to the views of Parliament if I considered that the authority had under-estimated the strength of feeling on any particular issue, but it is not a part of my job to tell the IBA what to do about matters for which it, and it alone, has been given responsibility.

Mr. Edelman: The right hon. Gentleman has very properly pointed out that the IBA is responsible under the Television Act to Parliament, but a point he has not dealt with is what happens when the IBA fails in its duty as in the debate is has been accused of doing. Why has he not intervened in cases in which it has conspicuously failed in its duty?

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member will recognise that when there is a clear consensus of opinion in this House that the authority has failed in any particular instance, or even in the general observance of the duties which this House has placed upon it, the course is open to the Minister to replace the existing members of the authority by other members.
To sum up, although we have not followed the Select Committee's report in every actual recommendation, its analysis has certainly been of the greatest value. I am sure that hon. Members would wish to express their gratitude to our colleagues who served on the Committee for the work they have done. The Government consider that there is no cause in the present decade to alter the basic structure of broadcasting in this country.
There are, of course, several important issues which need to be tackled, and this we shall be doing in the coming months. These are: the question of the fourth channel, cable television, the findings of the study in the provision of broadcasting services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England and the representation of viewers' interests. This makes up into a comprehensive package of action on broadcasting and demonstrates why a general inquiry is unnecessary at this stage. It also illustrates the


inappropriateness of the Opposition amendment and the total absence of justification for the critical tone of some Opposition speeches. I therefore invite my hon. Friends to vote them down tonight.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I warmly apologise to the Minister for missing the first part of his speech, but I heard enough at the end to make me worried about whether it is possible, as he suggested, to take a decision on cable television without a thoroughgoing inquiry first. It is possible to take a negative and unconstructive decision in advance of an inquiry, but we cannot do justice to the opportunities presented without the inquiry which my hon. Friends have been demanding.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal mainly with the subject of cable television. My constituents are able to view locally-initiated television programmes in their homes. Since July last year Greenwich cable television has broadcast for one hour a day with strictly locally-initiated programmes. On Monday I had the great pleasure of presenting a television football cup to the Plumstead Royals football team, which won the Greenwich cable television football competition conducted among several teams in the area. That was a good idea. There is no reason why other hon. Members should not have the opportunity of presenting similar cups to football teams.
Apart from sport, on Greenwich cable television we have had local issues discussed by local people, plays performed by local schools, women's affairs programmes and local arts and religious and youth programmes of our region. In addition, we had on the cable two BBC and at least two ITV programmes because we get London Weekend and Anglia— which is a great deal more than is obtained in other constituencies—and we had sound broadcasting as well. The programmes are, of course, rudimentary. Those concerned would be the first to agree that, compared with the high standards achieved by the BBC and ITV, because of extremely important technical difficulties, the programmes are rudimentary.
Greenwich cable television is also faced with serious difficulties such as the special effort needed to tune in, which discourages many who watch the programme. In spite of this and the fact that it is operating on a shoestring budget of £25,000 a year, many constituents take the trouble to watch sufficiently to make the system worth while. The Minister demands payment for this valuable experiment, from which I hope he will be able to learn. He demands that this small company, with small resources, should pay the Ministry part of the expense of the experiment.
Yet people are really anxious to appear on Greenwich cable television and so far there has been a sufficient degree of success to justify the conclusion of the Select Committee that
in the late seventies and eighties, cable television will be as important for the broadcasting industry and, above all, for the communication needs of the country, as was the introduction of television in the forties and fifties.
Those are stirring words, but I consider they arc justified. Already 2 million families have sets wired for television. If all took advantage of the exciting wire system, nearly one-third of the sets would be wired and getting their programmes on a cable. I predict the disappearance of all television aerials from the British skyline within the next 20 years, even granted the rather cautious and conservative attitude which the Minister displays.
Briefly, what are the advantages of cablevision? There are certain secondary advantages, such as much better reception, easier maintenance, cheaper sets in certain systems—I am not going into the technology tonight—and the absence of aerials. If I were asked to place the types of environmental pollution in order of demerit, I would put the television aerial high on the list. Aerials, especially in the country districts, are a form of environmental pollution which we would be much better without.
The first major advantage, however, is, of course, increased participation. I mean this not in any political sense but in the simple sense. I estimate that Greenwich people already appear on television at least 10 times more than people elsewhere in this country and that that figure can and will be increased. For masses of people, cablevision means not just watching the screen but appearing on it,


and that is the objective we should be working towards.
But the main advantage of cablevision is the vastly increased choice. I do not know that a good case has been made out that we need more choice simply in itself or that people want more choice simply in itself. Heaven forbid that we should reach a similar situation as, in the United States, where there is a choice of 12 different channels but with about the same programme on each. That is something we have to avoid. More of the same, only worse, is quite the wrong objective when it comes to choice. The speeches of some hon. Members on the Government side today convinced me that in practice this was what they were working towards—more of the same, only worse.
By "choice" we means a wider choice of quite different types of programme. This can come only through cablevision. If the British are to remain sane and democratic, the mass output of our national and regional broadcasters has to be balanced by an entirely new range of viewing choices—local affairs, local sport, local films, leisure activities, education and all the rest—as well as a service for repeating outstanding programmes which would not otherwise be repeated.
The service must be truly local. It is no good talking in terms of the regional half-hours that some of the ITV regional companies produce. They are not local and they are very restricted in time. My concept of community television is on a borough basis, no higher than that. That is a service that only cable can achieve, with a minimum of 12 programmes. There could be many more, depending on the technology, and preferably with two-way communication, which is not out-of-the-world expensive or difficult, so that one could initiate one's programme from one's own set.
What are the obstacles? First, there is the rapid change of technology. We cannot tell, if we go now for a big cable-vision programme, whether the whole technology will not have changed and become out of date. I absolutely reject this form of argument. If we refuse to advance in the 70s and '80s because technology might be even better in the '90s, we will simply do nothing. The implication of this objection is that some-

how technology will stop at some moment and that, at the moment it ceases to change and advance—so the Minister and his White Paper imply—a decision will be taken.
But it will go on changing all the time. If we always allow the good to be ousted with a vague prospect of the best, we shall get nothing done. I say this with greater confidence because I think that existing technology will be compatible with the later technologies when they come. It is a question of the interface of one local system with the main network, the main trunk system. Such technical knowledge as I have suggests that what we do now, if we have a vigorous policy of development, will not unduly prejudice future changes in technology.
The second major obstacle is finance The Television Advisory Committee's estimate was £500 million to £1,500 million as the capital cost of the system, or, if the particular cable viewer paid the whole cost, between £5 and £10 a year for him. How is this to be financed? Conservative Members have looked forward to increasing the scope and scale of commercial advertising. I hope and believe that this will never be accepted at the local level, at least by those who will try to develop these local systems. I do not believe that many Labour local authorities, for example, would welcome a system which would destroy local newspapers to start with and which was not really wanted.
I dispute absolutely the view that people positively want advertising on their screens. On the contrary, there is likely to be growing resistance in general to commercial advertising on television in the years ahead. It is worth reflecting that, only 20 years ago, those who condemned outdoor advertising as environmental pollution were dismissed as cranks. Yet that is a very general view today.
I predict that, as the years go by, people will see that advertising which interrupts television programmes is just as objectionable as advertising which interrupts our views of the countryside. We have not got there yet, but that will happen. Conservative Members will then be regarded as pioneer cultural pollutionists —and quite right too, in my opinion.
I am not arguing that there is any politically acceptable alternative to advertising for financing ITV for many years to come, but I do say that to suggest that the concept with which I am dealing can be financed by advertising is to destroy the whole principle and aim of local broadcasting. That would automatically motivate those who planned the programmes towards maximising the audience, when the whole sense of this new concept is for the minority programme, the local programme, the special interest programme. The two things will not match.
Two big changes are needed in broadcasting finance. First, as my hon. Friends have rightly said, the television licence must go. This matter was discussed fully in a recent debate. Anyone can see that, in the old days, when only a proportion of people had sets, it was necessary that they should pay for the television and that those who did not have sets should not pay. The licence made sense then. Today, when practically everyone has a set, the television licence has simply become a big poll tax, paid equally by the very poor and the very rich. It costs £12½ million a year in collection and evasion and it ties the BBC to the Government, because it forces the BBC to kowtow to Ministers every few years in order to get an increase in the fee.
The television licence should go now, independently of anything else we decide. Instead—the second major change in my opinion—we must establish a Broadcasting Finance Council organised on the lines of the Arts Council, so that it can accept some of its revenue in rates and taxes without losing its independence to the local authorities and the Government. We know how to do this. It works with the Arts Council. It can work with a Broadcasting Finance Council.
That council, therefore, would receive from general taxation the amount of the licence money. It would receive rate contributions from those local authorities which enjoyed local television services— paid centrally, of course. We should never allow a local authority to pay locally for its local television: that would be intolerable. There would also be the subscriptions from cable viewers who had the system, plus, I would say, a large slice of the grossly excessive revenue from the ITV's advertising monopoly.

We should have a council capable of financing both the BBC and the development of cablevision.
One might envisage even £50 million a year for the development of cable-vision starting as soon as a proper inquiry had been made into it. This is perfectly practicable, but I am not asking the Minister or the House to say "Yes". I am simply asking the Minister not to turn down this or other constructive ideas without properly examining them. However, the Minister says that he will turn down the suggestion without even examining it. He cannot hold that kind of position. He should have a wide-ranging inquiry to see whether I am talking nonsense. I and others have good ideas which deserve examination.
The Minister has a wait-and-see policy. In a cursory reference at the end of his speech he said that he would look into cablevision. We know that he will make a negative response. He will not make a proper study. It will be a complicated business and his policy will never work. The right hon. Gentleman's policy and that of his backbench supporters is to let things rip, which will mean that we get more of the same thing but much worse. I ask the House to urge the Minister to have an inquiry.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. John Gorst: In order to satisfy those Members who are keen on such things, I should like to declare that I have no interest to declare on the subject except a failure to produce the sort of broadcasting on commercial radio which I think this country should have.
It is usually assumed that if one criticises or disagrees with the Front Benches and, in broadcasting matters, with the BBC and the IBA and with most of the speeches that are made, one is unlikely to be making a good and effectual speech. Since all of this applies in my case I will have only one redeeming feature of making a short speech.
I believe that there should be more television and that there should be a fourth channel but I do not believe that there should be a fourth channel until there has been an inquiry. I do not believe that a decision can be taken about a fourth channel in total isolation and


without considering the rôle of the BBC. The Select Committee, the White Paper, and most of the discussion today has been like a performance of Hamlet without the Prince. It has almost been as if we have been discussing trains and their usefulness in the community without considering that there are other possibilities, such as road, air and sea transport. All the propositions put forward for a fourth channel make certain assumptions about the whole pattern of broadcasting and about the maintenance of the status quo for the BBC.
But to brush away the argument for an inquiry, as the Minister has done, on the ground that a television advisory committee has identified the possibility of changes in the 1980s, reminds me of when we were told that we could not have commercial local radio because, it was argued by earlier Governments, the frequencies were not available. All the time we all knew that they were. This argument was never produced when there was a change from 405 to 625 lines, or when the change was to colour. This was no argument against having BBC 2. The Government cannot have the argument both ways, and yet that is what they appear to be doing. The first question about the fourth channel is not who should run it but whether it should be competitive or complementary.
Much of the argument that has taken place has taken it for granted that it should be voluntary, and that seems to be the burden of the argument of the television companies and the IBA. Before it is possible to decide, we must ask what should be the rôle of the BBC. Much of the argument for a fourth channel, and in particular for it to be a commercial television channel, assumes that there is a fixed amount of advertising revenue that is available, and that it cannot be split between two competing commercial channels because there is insufficient to go round.
I do not say that an inquiry would necessarily decide but, if we were to consider that the rôle of the BBC, its mandate, should be changed so that instead of there being two popular television channels and five radio outlets—four national radio channels and a series of local stations—the BBC should be a sort

of broadcasting Arts Council to complement the popular programmes provided on a competitive basis by others, we would be releasing a popular audience for competition between the others. I do not necessarily suggest that this is the way it should be done, but without an inquiry to assess these matters and their social, political and economic considerations, we are not likely to make a rational and reasonable decision.
For the Government there is basically only one argument for the delay of eight years and that is that technical developments are coming along. However, I put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister that decisions which have to be taken are basically political decisions. They are not decisions in which the working members of broadcasting organisations should be asked to spend a great deal of time. What we have to decide are matters relating to finance. It was suggested by the BBC not long ago that by 1976 it would run into a multi-million pound deficit—long before 1981—and therefore that decisions have to be taken. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say that this is not a realistic estimate because the BBC has its estimates wrong about the level of licence revenue that might come from colour television.
Maybe my right hon. Friend is right or maybe the BBC is right. What is also open to question, however, is whether, with the changes that have been effected in the period of the present Government, we require the BBC to put its various sound broadcasting resources into so many channels. This is a matter at least for assessment by independent inquiry and subsequently for a decision on a political level, a decision which must be related to the cost factors involved. I see no reason why technical factors should determine a consideration of the rôle of public service broadcasting, whether or not it should be complementary or competitive, and whether we should have five or fewer radio channels from the public service broadcasting system.
I want to urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that there should be an inquiry if there is to be a fourth channel. I urge him to decide that there should be, because in a democracy the more channels of communication there are, the healthier


will be that democracy. Most of the people who watch television watch it for entertainment, but we politicians and this House have the responsibility to consider not merely the entertainment but also the cultural and information aspects of the medium, and it is those aspects which I believe are the important aspects about which to take decisions long before 1981.
To make any decisions without at the same time considering the rôle of the BBC is to take a decision on a false premise, because no such decision could be valid unless it were related to the whole spectrum and not to just one small part. Let us have a little more of the Prince to accompany the Hamlet we are discussing tonight.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Dorman: As a Member of the Select Committee I am greatly tempted to take up the Minister's speech, but I promised to speak for only a few moments and I am also committed to speaking on something which could be regarded, and I regard it, as a minor theme of the report. Therefore, I intend to honour those obligations.
I found the Minister's speech deeply disappointing. It was irrelevant in many respects, but I am delighted that he found time at the end to deal with the question of the consumer. None of the speeches in the debate has referred to the consumer. I hope that the House will not think, if I do not deal with the major items already mentioned by my hon. Friend—the allocation of a fourth channel and the need for a wide-ranging inquiry—that I do not feel as strongly about those subjects as anyone else. I most certainly do. If these matters are to be widely discussed, it is perhaps even more important that someone should deal with some of the minor aspects of the report, and I make no apology for doing so.
The highest standard of television can be attained only if there is full two-way communication from the authority, the IBA, to the viewer and from the viewer to the authority. The report shows quite clearly that there are fundamental weaknesses in the structure and that most people do not even know of the existence of the central body of the IBA. They have never heard of it, and the IBA takes

no positive steps to make itself known to the public at large. Even if it did there would manifestly be difficulty in estab-lishing a close relationship between the two.
The authority therefore must rely on its regional officers. I pay a tribute to the work done by these dedicated people. They work hard, they have a heavy workload and they make an important contribution to the service. However, they work under at least two disadvantages. First, they have too much to do in that they cover too wide an area so that their efforts are dissipated. Secondly, like the IBA, they are virtually unknown outside the companies. We Members of Parliament in the North are generally more fortunate than most hon Members in that we have a regional officer who is conscious of the kind of rôle I am describing and who keeps us closely informed on everything that is being done. We in turn, I hope, can make our presence felt on these important matters.
The importance of the work of the regional officers is recognised by the report. It has a specific recommendation about them. It says:
Regional Officers should be appointed on the basis of one for each programme company, their rôle to be strengthened and their existence made known to the public in each area.
I welcome that recommendation. I disagree with my colleagues on the committee when I say that it does not go far enough. If one regional officer were appointed to each company it would provide a much-needed strengthening of the liaison between the IBA and the companies and it would have the added advantage of providing the authority with the information about the public's views required by the Act. That, too, is the first time the Act has been mentioned today. I am bound to say, however, that much will depend on the person himself. In becoming totally involved with the community he serves, he could work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Great care is needed in the selection of these officers.
The existence of the regional officer is little known to the public at large. Nothing less than a continuing campaign —I place the onus for it on the IBA and, perhaps, the Government—will be necessary to make the public aware that he is


the man who safeguards their interests and to whom representations can be made. He provides the local touch which is necessary in so many ways these days, when we have ever bigger institutions.
I hope that something will be done to strengthen the rôle of the regional officer, because he can make good some of the deficiencies in the IBA structure, which the report highlights in a number of places. The IBA's observations on that part of the report seem less than enthusiastic. The authority seems to damn the office with faint praise. As I say, I disagree with my hon. Friends on the matter. I think that there should be a better regional office, properly staffed, with the regional officer as the spearhead of the attack but with his own expert advisers and with fully appointed administrative staff.
I said at the beginning of my speech that two-way communication between the authority and the viewers was of the utmost importance. I turn to the machinery established for representing the views of the consumer, which takes the form of the General Advisory Council.
I mean no disrespect to the members of that body when I say that it is a toothless wonder. Some of its members are distinguished people, of high intelligence and wide experience. Two of them are hon. Members of this House. But I challenge anyone inside or outside the IBA to say that it is an effective body. I remind the House of the council's terms of reference:
To keep under review the programmes of Independent Television and to make comments to the Authority thereon; to advise the Authority on the general pattern and content of programmes; and to consider such other matters affecting the Independent Television service as may from time to time be referred to it by the Authority.
Those are pretty strong, extensive powers, but as a member of the Select Committee I gained the clear impression that the advisory council plays a minor rôle in the work of the IBA. I attribute that largely, though not entirely, to the over-cosy relationship between the authority and the council. I say that in no pejorative manner. I refer to the structure rather than the personal relationships although both are obviously involved.
The weaknesses can be shown with examples. First, members of the council are appointed by the authority, which seems to me indefensible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ridiculous."] I agree with my hon. Friend. The appointment should be completely out of the hands of the authority and the members should be appointed by the Minister or some other third party.
Secondly, the council has no staff of its own, and depends on the authority staff. It was very revealing to learn from the evidence we took that the council's report on its work was written by the secretariat of the authority. I admit that the chairman of the council saw the draft and made a number of changes and comments on the report, but this illustrates an interdependence of a degree that should not exist. The chairman of the council admitted in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) that he thought the relationship was a little too cosy.
I have a third example. The council meets four times a year, and I understand that it meets on the premises of the IBA. Four meetings a year are totally inadequate, and the meeting place confirms the impression that the council is no more than an appendage of the authority, seeking to carry out its wishes.
My final example concerns the composition of the council. In his evidence, the chairman readily conceded that the present body reflects, in his own words, "middle-class intellectualism". It is not an easy task to appoint people to such a body, but I believe that it should have more working-class members. If the Minister or anyone else has difficulties in that respect, if he lets me know I will send down some miners from my constituency, who will make a most effective contribution.
I shall not choose any more examples. I hope that I have shown that there are inherent weaknesses in the present structure, and I trust that they will be corrected. The rapport, the relationship, the link between the IBA and the people, the viewers, is virtually non-existent.
That is not to say that we have a totally unsatisfactory television service— far from it. But if the IBA and the Government accept the recommendations


made by the Select Committee on the narrower points about which I have talked tonight, I am certain that the service will be greatly improved.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The only possible valid justification for the decision to extend the operation of the Television Act and Sound Broadcasting Act and the BBC charter to 1981 is that there is general satisfaction in the country and in Parliament with the Acts and the charter and their operation, and that we in the House cannot improve upon them significantly at this stage. That poses the obvious question whether the situation is as I have described it.
The reasons of my right hon. Friend the Minister for letting the BBC and the IBA roll on in their present form are essentially practical. What he has told us is that the time is not ripe for an inquiry. The implication is that if there is anything very wrong with our broadcasting systems, it can be put right largely by internal action.
In this connection it is significant that of the Select Committee's 30 recommendations about the IBA, only nine are for my right hon. Friend to consider. The remainder are obviously for the authority. Internal reform is one of the most difficult kinds of reform to carry out. I should be a little happier if I were more assured than I am that the IBA has an open mind on the 21 recommendations put to it by the Select Committee. In the answers that it has given so far, published alongside the Minister's observations, the IBA has shown that it has a tendency to a closed mind after 17 years' existence.
The most important of the nine recommendations for the Minister is recommendation No. 29, which calls for a full-ranging inquiry and expresses in fairly mild terms some of the dissatisfaction felt in some quarters with the present structure and state of broadcasting. The Select Committee dealt only with the IBA, but a great deal of the criticism applied to the IBA is at times equally, if not more, applicable to the BBC.
We all have a suspicion about where the structural faults in the broadcasting organisations lie. All these faults are inter-related. I shall touch on only some. First, there is the considerable independence that Parliament has given to the

broadcasting authorities, admittedly for the best of reasons. This autonomy, and the extensive immunity from parliamentary Questions in particular that it entails, has grave disadvantages from the point of view of public responsibility and accountability. The Select Committee is on the right lines in recommending study of methods of securing greater public accountability.
The BBC and the IBA are like the mediæval Church, a State within a State, an imperium in imperio. If we in Parliament cannot trust ourselves with the responsibility for them, they must be publicly accountable by other means independent of themselves. I think that that was the essence of the criticism made by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) of the Advisory Council of the IBA. It is not independent of the IBA. I think that we can say the same of the many advisory councils and bodies that advise the BBC. There is the same kind of cosy relationship.
What kind of system, what kind of body, are we to have that is independent of the BBC and IBA? It has been suggested that we should have a consumer council for the entire media. There have been objections on the ground that the field covered would be far too large. I still return to some form of broadcasting council, which could be similar to the Press Council and which would have a general oversight of both the IBA and the BBC.
The second structural flaw in broadcasting is at the very top of the authorities. The top echelons of both the BBC and the IBA are far too concerned with defending their institutions and what goes on within them, and they are insufficiently concerned with real control and the positive pursuit of good programming, which is the simple thing we are asking them to do.
The IBA's refusal to take a more positive rôle by sponsoring programmes is an example of what I mean. Programming is the life blood of television, and the IBA must involve itself in that central activity of producing programmes. Sir Lew Grade in his evidence to the Select Committee kept harping very amusingly on this theme. Putting it in his way, the authority will never know anything about programming unless it is actually involved


in production. The IBA should be more open-minded about that recommendation. The power for it to be rather more involved in programming is in the Act.
The third flaw in the structure, I suspect, lies at the producer level. This is the reactor at the heart of the power station, where positive influence for good can be brought to bear. On page 8 of Cmnd. 5244 the IBA feels it necessary to say that its programme activities
are not confined to approval of schedules and thereafter to hope".
I wonder how much truth there is in the reverse of this denial. I wonder too how much the top executives at the BBC know about what is going on in the programmes they put out. The authority says that when poor quality is diagnosed, this is taken up with the producing company. From my experience, that was often after rather than before the programme had been inflicted on the viewing public.
The IBA and the BBC have to take a new look at themselves and to realise fully that it is at producer level that there is this power-house of creative ideas. Perhaps they should shape their organisations much more around the central activity of programming. I do not believe that there is half enough editing in either organisation. There is nothing comparable with the editing that goes on in the Press where material is totally discarded. There should be much more of such editing and total discarding of inadequate programmes in television. Nor do I think there is sufficient training of producers, directors and all the other people involved in the television industry.
There is surely a flaw in the relationship between the broadcasting authorities and the public. It is essentially one way. The authorities always have the upper hand. Whether they are giving the public what they want or ought to have, it is what the authorities think they want or ought to have. I agree with the Select Committee about the need for more research. What we want is more contact between the rarefied world of television and the outside world. From this will come a more real sense of responsibility on the part of those involved in television.
I want to say a few words about the fourth channel. I believe that it should go to the IBA. It has some claim upon

it. I am not altogether happy that it should go to the existing programme companies, although I can well understand their fear that unless they get the second channel they may find themselves outdone in terms of audience by the combined audience of BBC 2 and BBC 1 and consequently become unattractive to advertisers.
I would like to see the IBA use the fourth channel to involve itself more actively in programming. I would hope that the channel would be experimental. One of the great successes in television has been Independent Television News. We can all agree on that. Can we not have similar experimental bodies concerned purely with their own specialty? Why not, for example, have a drama company or one specialising in light entertainment, each contributing to a complete service? I have long been of the opinion that it is only through this kind of specialisation that we can get quality programmes.
In Wales there is a considerable demand for segregation of Welsh language programmes. This is backed by the broadcasting organisations, by Welsh speakers who want nothing but Welsh and by non-Welsh speakers who do not want any Welsh at all. After much serious consideration I am reluctantly forced to favour this separation of Welsh language programmes and to accept the claim in Wales for the use of the fourth channel for Welsh language programmes. The IBA in Wales tells me that this can be done, given the chance.
There is much to be said for the Government's course of action. The time may not be ripe for a general inquiry. At the same time, I want many of the points that I and others have mentioned to be discussed. Presumably we shall have an opportunity to discuss them when we extend the Television Act and renew the BBC charter.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts). I agree so much with what he said that he has ettectively shortened my speech.
There are two things I must say by way of caveat. First, all of us, considering the Select Committee recommendations,


who urge on the IBA, on the one hand, to take a greater interest and a more active rôle in programming and scheduling and who, on the other, say that there should be complete separation between the IBA and the advisory councils are putting forward a proposition which may to some degree be contradictory. That is a danger we must face.
In view of the hon. Member's later remarks I must also say that there are dangers to be faced if the language service, however meritorious in itself, is isolated on a special channel, be it radio or television. If educational broadcasting were to be isolated on the fourth channel, that would diminish educational broadcasting. If Welsh language programmes were to be put on to the fourth channel only and rammed down the throats of the Welsh, that would probably diminish the Welsh language.
We have only to look at the effect of compulsory Irish on Telefis Eireann to see this. The Welsh Language Society and others ought to realise that those who now want the Welsh language compul-sorily dominating the fourth channel in Wales may not have the best interests of that language at heart.
I take part in this debate with a heavy heart. I, too, must declare an interest, not of the log-rolling variety, but as one who gave evidence to the Select Committee which, judging by its recommendations, was accepted, and as one who is therefore somewhat upset over the way in which the Government have rebuffed both the Committee and its distinguished adviser, Professor Himmelweit. I must also declare an interest in that I was one of the founders of the 76 Group—which I suppose must now be called the 81 Group—for Broadcasting Reform, which was urging as its major plank that there should be an inquiry, purely because although we could suggest most of the questions about the future structure of broadcasting we were not presumptuous enough to suggest the answers as well. It was clear that an inquiry was the best way to do that.
However, I fear that the debate today has been in sad contrast with debates in which more controversial matters are discussed, matters which are thought to be of great political moment. More hon. Members were present yesterday and the

day before to discuss water resources than are here today. That was a debate about a national resource which may be seen and appreciated as such—a source of life. But air waves are also a national resource. Television, and to a lesser degree radio, are basic and fundamental and affect the lives of all the households in this country. Every bit as much as the water that comes out of the tap, broadcasting is a basic service to households nowadays.
For that reason I hope that the House will not take at its face value the White Paper provided by the Minister in reply to the Select Committee. In that White Paper I fear that the bland have attempted to lead the blind. I hope that the House at least is not blind, however bland the report may have been.
The reason why so many of us have urged that there should be an inquiry and that it should take place in the general sequence of inquiries of 1935, 1949 and 1960, and why such a course of action has also been urged in the Press, by the broadcasting unions and most people who have written seriously about broadcasting, whatever their persuasion or preconceptions, is that the only possible way to get a general structural reappraisal of the shape of broadcasting at both the macro and the micro level, with the over-the-air broadcasting we have had so far and the new technologies which will break down many traditional secrecies and supremacies of the professional broadcaster, is by a comprehensive inquiry.
How much greater is the need for that inquiry now than was the need for the previous inquiries. When the Ullswater Committee sat in 1935 we were already looking at the consequences of the relay companies and their relations with the Post Office, the first 10 years of BBC and the imminence of television, which was introduced in the following year. When the Beveridge Committee was set up in 1949 we were already looking at some of the dangers and potential of the BBC monopoly. That was considered seriously by the Beveridge Committee 20 years ago. Many of the things that Beveridge said about that monopoly are apposite reading even today. The Pilkington Report, which is not the final fount of wisdom on our present broadcasting structures, also looked at the first few years of performance of ITV.
How much more necessary is it that we should have an inquiry now, at a time when innovations both of a structural and a technological kind have come not annually but almost every month on to the broadcasting scene.
For the Minister to take refuge in the narrow, national broadcasting terms of reference of Cockburn and to say that there is no technical reason for an inquiry now on the future of broadcasting in this decade is at best a supine attitude, and I am sorry that he has done so. There are so many things that have to be discussed.
We have heard about the possible destiny of the fourth channel, the final UHF channel which is available. A decision about it could be taken tomorrow. We have heard something about cable and a little about local radio. The Minister's real reason is certainly not the curious one that there is now a new Chairman of the BBC. The Director-General of the BBC was changed in 1960 —the year Pilkington was set up. The year in which the BBC Charter expired, the Chairman of the BBC was changed. These arguments were not then advanced as reasons why the BBC should not be re-examined. What is at stake is that the Government are fundamentally satisfied with the present duopoly.
The Government regard this analysis of broadcasting and broadcasting structures as one which will enshrine at least until 1981 the present system of the BBC on the one hand—the public service monolith—and commercial broadcasting as a whole with the development of local commercial radio and perhaps a fourth channel on the other. The Government see the only forces of change out of this static situation as the commercial appetite, which is always a powerful catalyst on the one hand and the occasional irredentism of Portland Place on the other.
There are alternative structures which have been widely canvassed over the last last few years, not only within the Select Committee. These suggestions are taking place in a vacuum because of the absence of the inquiry which could have taken place within the brief of the Annan Committee which was lamentably wound up by the Government when they came to

power. I do not believe that the Standing Conference on Broadcasting or the Social Morality Council Inquiry, excellent though they may be within their self-appointed terms of reference, can replace an exhaustive inquiry on the Ulswater/ Beveridge/ Pilkington pattern.
The suggestions put forward publicly in the last few years have been wide-ranging. Five or six years ago a former Secretary of the ITA, Professor Weddell, suggested a new structure for broadcasting, a devolved system of four television and two radio authorities plus a separate local radio authority and a national finance board—similar to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew)—to allocate surplus advertising revenue across the board to broadcasting, and a transmission agency.
Mr. Sean Day-Lewis in the Daily Telegraph—hardly a radical newspaper— exactly a year ago proposed a broadcasting authority with four separate channels and divided functions beneath it. Reference has been made to the Cable Television Association's proposal and to the proposals of the ACTT Television Commission, the main broadcasting union, and to others from the Institute of Practitioners of Advertising and Mr. Anthony Smith who proposed a National Television Foundation specifically for the fourth channel.
It will be said that these proposals can be disregarded because effectively many of them contradict each other. The proposals suggest one thing or the other according to special interests and the grinding of axes. It has always been the position of the Ministry, the Civil Service and the broadcasting hierarchies on both sides of the duoply in recent years that because these criticisms were to some degree self-contradictory they cancelled each other out.
In a remarkably complacent statement in the last BBC Annual Report the Director-General of the BBC said that the corporation had always provided an opportunity for its audiences to disagree with each other. That seems to be the view of those who have a settled interest in maintaining the status quo. They are quite happy for the critics to disagree with each other.
All the critics point to a dissatisfaction with the present structures that is


far wider than was expressed in the general debates about broadcasting in 1935, 1949 and 1960. That is why we are saying that it is wrong for the inquiry to be put off and that when Labour comes back to office an inquiry will be held forthwith. I hope also that we shall not be bound by the date 1981 and that extensions of the charter and Act will be simply for the time needed for an inquiry to be held, for the report to be published and for public discussion before new structures are brought into effect. That need not take up to 1981—far from it.
There are a number of fundamental questions which the Minister and his advisers should be considering. They are questions which will not go away simply because we have been told that there shall be no inquiry and that the Select Committee could have saved its time because no one will listen to its proposals about ITV, and similarly for those others who have criticised the BBC. There is the question of finance. There is the question whether the licence fee is the best system and whether we should not now be having separate public service authorities financed from general taxation instead of one financed from the licence fee. the main virtue of which appears to be to ensure that the BBC is the unique recipient of public service money for public service broadcasting. There is also the question whether ITV can ever work properly while it confuses what Pilkington called its primary and secondary rôles of commercial broadcasting— the provision of programmes and the sale of advertising space.
There is the question of scheduling and the widespread complaint that where BBC 1 and the ITV channel are at the same time on the same night showing "Carry on Camping" and "Carry on up the Khyber", it is not good enough. It is not the case that all the channels at the moment are complementary and that a fourth channel would be again. They are not complementary. They are competitive, often in the crudest way, because like against like dictates that situation, the public broadcasting and the commercial broadcasting organisation alike.
I suggest that one matter which the Minister should consider is whether there might not be some overall scheduling

function and also overall research and publishing functions, which cannot be carried out piecemeal by the rival organisations that we have at the moment but which might be carried out by some overall authority.
In the same area of discussion I put the matter of countervailing power. Various hon. Members have referred already to the question of viewers' access, complaints procedures and so on. There is general agreement that the attempt by the BBC and the IBA jointly to suggest that "beefing up" their advisory councils, which they appoint, is a satisfactory means of having public participation in the discussion of programmes. Clearly it is not. It is equally clear that the complaints council set up by the BBC and composed of three distinguished old gentlemen, one of whom was later discovered to be dead, is no answer to independent reference for complaints of malpractice which was widely demanded by public opinion.
I suggest that here, too, there is a possible rôle for what I call an overall or supervisory body to look at the structures of broadcasting in a new light, call it a Broadcasting Commission or what you will. These proposals have come from many sources. They have to be discussed seriously, and to say that we can put them off until 1981 or beyond is unsatisfactory.
Equally it is unsatisfactory to say that we can go along with the present situation in radio ignoring the opportunity to conduct new and realistic experiments in radio. Commercial radio is no experiment. It is simply an attempt to give on a local level to those who have already, to allow a cut of cake to those already involved in the manufacture of hardware and the peddling of software to television and the general entertainments and communications industries.
After our debates in Committee on the Sound Broadcasting Bill, I find it deplorable to see the great monopolies which exist in commercial television already being allowed to buy in, in some cases contrary to the spirit of the Sound Broadcasting Act in their own areas, so that a company can buy 15 per cent. of one of the London radio companies although it has a very large holding in the predominant London television company. That will not give us any experiment.
With the possible exception of the Cambridge University submission, very few of the applications that have gone to the IBA are for genuine community participation in broadcasting. That is a matter that we cannot leave over. We cannot say that we can look at it in 1981 or thereafter.
It is not a matter which can be left largely in the hands of the BBC. So often has the BBC changed its policies according to the climate, announcing one day that it was against pirate radio stations and the next setting up Radio 1, otherwise known as "Radio Wonderful", and setting a distinctive style which has nothing to do with public service broadcasting. Some hon. Members may have read, in the celebratory volume for the 50th anniversary of the BBC, Mr. Peter Black's description of the coming of Radio One and Radio Two. He says:
For Radio One listeners the Corporation had become a barmy teenage twit, endlessly playing gramophone records of pop music and chatting up the housewives in a frightful Americo-Australio-Cockneyfield-Liverpool jargon that seemed to rise from some international sub-world. For Radio Two listeners it had become a kind of meals on wheels service, nourishing the old folk with selections from Ivor Novello and the Grand Hotel Orchestra.
It does not seem to me that that is the kind of responsible approach to public service radio that we would hope to see from the BBC. It seems inevitable that we shall continue to have this situation if the BBC is allowed to keep national radio while there is simply commercial radio at the local level and to take refuge in large audiences for Messrs. Terry Wogan, Pete Murray, and other gentlemen like them.
I suggest that we should be considering not only some form of National Broadcasting Commission to look at alternative forms of television and radio broadcasting in the public service and in the public interests as well as the commercial sector, however it is organised, and as well as the fourth channel if it is to be given to some form of new national television foundation. We should also be looking at realistic experiments in the micro field, by which I mean the area of cable television.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East has spoken already with enthusiasm about the experiment in Greenwich. I have been there to see the kind

of programmes that they broadcast. For £20,000 a year they put on almost as much programming as the local independent television company, Southern Television, which makes £1 million profit a year. It is a moving experience to see in a semi-detached house the beginning of a new system of local television. At the moment it is brutally restricted. They have to pay for this privilege and sometimes they are under the fussy control of a clerk in the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. But it is happening, and to think that we can restrict the experiment, keeping the five stations and nothing else and that the rest of cable television will grow only where and when we want it, ignores the experience of other advanced countries who have begun to introduce cable systems.
I remember last year at a conference in Brussels a gentleman read a long and exhaustive paper about the coming of cable television. He said that it would take a long time before it came to European countries. At one point his words were almost drowned by a noise in the street outside. It was only later that we discovered that it was caused by a cable system being installed in Brussels. It is happening all round us and in a way which will damage the television professionals—people like me who have always taken a pride in the restrictive mystique and mysteries of the communications business.
I make one last quotation from last week's edition of the magazine Broadcast. The managing director-elect of the Swindon Cable Television station writes:
In medieval England monks were about the only people who could read and write Changing this situation took a very long time Today our medieval monks pace the cloisters of the national networks, believing in their divine right to the electric image. Change happens faster these days, but it is still not going to happen overnight. Putting television into the hands of the people is an exciting, but exhausting educational task.
I agree with that. The people who are most threatened are those who, like myself, have lived their professional lives in television as an over-the-air central national organisation. Those great communities of the broadcasting elites are threatened, but it is in the public interest and to the public gain if the small community can take its share in these exciting potentials.
I do not believe that the Minister's attitude, following the lamentable Cock-burn Report, gives that kind of potential that any community like the town that I represent with a population of 250,000 people already has for local television.

Sir J. Eden: I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman about the great potential at community level that cable television provides. The experiments are just beginning. It is my intention to see in what way these experiments can be further encouraged. That is why I am engaged or will increasingly be engaged in discussions with the Cable Television Association and others, as I said in my speech.

Mr. Whitehead: I welcome that statement by the Minister, because he still has an opportunity to redeem himself in this sphere. There is a growing generation in the colleges and going through the polytechnics—in the United States and Canada it is a generation in the schools and even the primary schools—which is familiar with all the techniques of visual communication of television, videotaping, and so on. They know about it because they can go out into the streets carrying a Portapak camera which uses half-inch videotape which enables them to make and edit their own television programmes, and they can then wipe the tape and use it again. They will not put up with narrow national elites, bureaucrats or politicians who do not want them to get this means of communication into their hands.
There was a remarkable report in the Christian Science Monitor about a group of 10-year old schoolchildren in Boston, Massachusetts, who made their own "Dr. Who" style of programme for which they made the props and in which they acted and put the whole thing together. That generation will not lightly take the failure of this House or of the Minister to widen the whole potential range of visual communication in the next decade.
The Minister may have missed his opportunity. We must not miss ours. We still have a chance to make the most powerful medium of today responsive to the public interest and reflecting all the strands of our democracy. I hope that we

shall take our chance by rejecting the philosophy of the White Paper and initiating a proper inquiry, as soon as we, the representatives of the public, can, into the meaning and purposes of electronic communication—not merely what is communicated, who pays for it and who benefits from it, but what its selling potential may be for both ideas and associations.
Already, my two-year-old son will pick up a packet of cereals rather than another because there is a picture of Tom and Jerry on the packet. He cannot speak many words yet, but he already has associations which lead him to one form of consumption rather than another.
My three-year-old son, whose first words, I regret to tell the House, were "Telly on" and "Telly off", can already tell me that he will have one soggy cereal rather than another at breakfast because it is "man's natural food". He is echoing another commercial that he has heard.
I suggest that we should look at all these matters only in the context of an inquiry. The historian of the BBC, Asa Briggs, in a review in the New Statesman this week, said that when C. R. Wallace, the evolutionist, had drawn up a balance sheet in 1898 of the successes and failures of the nineteenth century he assigned first place among the successes to the conveyance of thought. What shall we say in the year 2000 of the successors of the telephone and the telegraph? Shall we be able to say that television, cable, and over-the-air are amongst the successes for the conveyance of thought, ideas, and all that is best in our society in the twentieth century? I hope that we can. If we are able to do so at that time it will be because the achievement has come from the initiative of this House.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I agree with his stress about the importance of this subject and his regret that there was no greater attendance in the House tonight. However, it is fair to express gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Minister who has been present and will remain throughout the rest of the debate.
I should like to deal with a reasonably limited area of vital importance which was mentioned notably by the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), namely, whether the interests of the consumer—the public—are adequately protected by our present procedures. This is a recurring theme throughout the Select Committee's report. It is particularly reflected in paragraph 164 which, having patted my right hon. Friend on the back, I think he rather skated over in his speech.
Today, we take very seriously the case of the consumer. We recognise the right of the public to adequate protection in a number of spheres. We emphasise that that protection should be adequate. There is no point in having a protection which seems adequate but is a sham. I suggest that we particularly recognise this right when the body that we are considering is exercising great power.
I will illustrate this point by analogy with the Home Office on a matter about which the hon. Member for Derby, North was very much concerned. I refer to the debate which has been going on for a number of years concerning the investigation of complaints against the police. The reason for concern is that the police exercise power, and therefore any abuse of power is a matter for concern. The Home Secretary has now proposed a new system as a result of the Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Derby, North. I take that example from the Home Office because, apart from anything else, I discovered from reading The Times leader today that the Home Secretary is chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Broadcasting. I hope he will take note of that analogy.
There are other examples where great power has been used and has led to the development of the consumer voice. There are consumer councils—for example, the Gas Consumer Council—for the nationalised industries which exercise monopoly powers. Power of another kind is exercised by the media, and that is covered by the Press Council. I am not necessarily suggesting that all the procedures in other spheres are perfect but I am saying that the general principle has been accepted.
Initially, what disturbs me about the broadcasting sphere is that all too often a

simple case of principle is not accepted. It is not accepted by some in broadcasting that the consumer should have an interest. It is said that things are better left to the broadcasters themselves. Finally, when all other arguments fail, it is said that consumer interest is another word for censorship.
It should be emphasised that the public have a legitimate interest in this area because of the undoubted power of the broadcasting organisations. They are semi-monopolies. Their power of communication, as has been said time and again, is enormous. Therefore, apart from anything else, the potential damage that they can do to an individual is also enormous.
The more sophisticated argument that is used—in a way, this argument was used by my right hon. Friend this evening —is that certainly the public has an interest but that that interest is already safeguarded by the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the board of governors of the BBC. That is the reason why they exist, and the setting-up of an independent consumer body would drive a knife through their hearts. The case put by the BBC was that it would call in question the structure of broadcasting control and would lead to some kind of regulating body and, eventually, to censorship. I believe that this is a nonsensical argument which should be refuted.
In ensuring the general day-to-day standards of the BBC and of the independent television companies, the IBA and the governors do a very good job indeed. I emphasise that I am referring to general standards. I can give one example from an area which I know very well indeed, having worked for nine years on a newspaper in Fleet Street. I regard the journalistic standards of the BBC as extremely high. I believe that a programme such as "News at Ten" is one of the best journalistic programmes of its kind. British Broadcasting Corporation correspondents, such as Charles Wheeler in Washington, are outstanding members of their profession and the general news service put out by the BBC is probably the best of its kind in the world.
The fact that general standards are high is not a complete answer to the case


that is being made. It does not answer the case for the consumer. The fact that the majority of programmes are good will not satisfy the viewer who is disturbed by the contents of a programme or by what he sees as a particular trend in broadcasting. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) mentioned the trend of violence and initiative crime. Equally, it is no comfort to a member of the public who believes that he has been harmed by a programme or by the activities of a broadcasting organisation to know that most people are not harmed. The innocent man who is in prison is probably not too much comforted by the fact that most of his fellow inmates are guilty. It probably does not restore his faith in the system of justice.
Both these factors have been recognised by the BBC and the IBA and they have set up their own bodies to deal with issues of this kind. The BBC has set up an advisory council and the IBA has set up a complaints review board. Therefore, the argument is not whether such bodies should be set up, because they are already in existence. The argument should be aimed at considering whether those bodies which have been set up are adequate to do the job.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Assuming that a broadcasting council is set up, to whom will it be responsible? Will it be responsible to the Minister or to the viewing and listening public? My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) is prepared to go the whole hog and say that such a body should be elected. What does the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) say?

Mr. Fowler: I shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman stays with me in my argument, because a little later in my speech I shall be coming on to the point which he raises.
The more general body of the two in independent television is the advisory council, and its terms of reference are wide. It sets out to keep under review independent television programmes, and I suppose that its remit could hardly be wider than that. Furthermore, it can make comments to the authority and may advise the authority on the content and pattern

of programmes. That appears to be a very wide remit except when we examine the matter a little more closely.
One of the chief advantages of the Select Committee report is that it highlights the ineffectiveness of the advisory council in terms of independent television. We are told in the report that the advisory council meets four times a year and that its meetings last between two and three hours. The chairman of the council told the Committee that meetings start at 2 o'clock and continue until about 5 o'clock. The attendance lessens as the afternoon wears on, but the chairman emphasised that most people stay until 4 o'clock. There are no meaningful soundings of public opinion. The advisory council has no full-time staff but has only a secretary who is loaned to the council by the authority.
The chairman told the Select Committee that the council contemplated making Press statements on its wide remit. But the fact remains that since 1964 no such Press statements have been made. If we want to see how effective a consumer body can be we have only to look at the evidence set out in the Select Committee report on the rôle of the advisory council. I suppose that something is better than nothing, but I do not regard the council —I do not blame its members—as an effective body to put forward consumer or public interests in terms of broadcasting.
The complaints review board appears to be rather more serious in its intent. It is beyond doubt that such a body is necessary and the case for it has been overwhelmingly made out.
I should like to make three points in emphasising why I feel that such a body is necessary. First, journalists— and television journalists in particular— of necessity work at enormous speed, and therefore mistakes can happen. I do not think any journalist would deny this. Secondly, journalism—again, television journalism in particular—can exaggerate by concentrating on a particular incident. For example, in the case of a demonstration a completely wrong impression can be given of the whole incident. To cut a quotation can mislead. The damage which that does is rather greater than the damage which is done by a newspaper, because the viewer is asked to believe the evidence of his own eyes.


He sees and hears it. Therefore, if damage is done it is substantially greater.
Thirdly, television journalism can be unfair. Members of the public can participate in a programme believing that they will be asked to do one thing and they can be required to do another. The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who is the adviser to the Police Federation, might be interested to know that the Police Federation's magazine Police in its current issue seems to give a good example of what would happen. Members of the federation were asked to go to a recent edition of London Weekend Television's "Weekend World ". Several of the representatives of the police associations, including Dick Pamplin of the Police Federation, went along to debate the hon. Gentleman's Private Member's Bill and his proposals for dealing with complaints against the police.
Much to their surprise but not to the surprise of the other side the live transmission was introduced by a film reconstructing a recent case in which a complainant had sued the police and won his case.
None of the police participating in the programme knew the facts of the case. Yet the programme resolved into an argument about its merits with the complainant present and making further allegations. The police spokesmen were not given prior knowledge for the very good reason that the producers knew that they would not have taken part in such a programme.
I am not necessarily apportioning blame in that case. However, it would seem prima facie that the members of the police who appeared on such a programme would want to have their case, if such existed, referred to some kind of impartial body.
The public have an interest in all three questions which I have raised. They have an interest which they have a right to expect to be protected. Therefore, it becomes a question of whether the Complaints Review Board, which is described in the Select Committee's report, is an adequate measure for doing that. The terms of reference are set out in the report and I shall not weary the House by repeating them. I merely mention in passing that part of its terms of reference is as follows:
In cases and matters which might give rise to the right of legal action the board will ask for a written undertaking that any such right

will not be exercised in connection with the complaint.
In other words a person loses or signs away his legal rights before making a complaint to the board.
Even if this is accepted the Programme Complaints Board seems to be defective on a number of important grounds, I doubt whether one person in 100,000 knows that the board exists. As an effective means of gathering complaints, it is necessary that the public should know that such a board exists. That seems to be a fairly elementary first step.
Secondly, there is no stipulation about publicity and about how the findings of such a board should be made public. Thirdly, there is no one upon the review board who seems to have any judicial experience. I make no comment about the individual members but I should have thought that someone with judicial experience would have been an asset to the board. Above all, the board's greatest defect is that it does not appear to be an independent review board. Doubtless it does its job vigilantly, but it has the appearance of a creature of the Independent Television Authority. The deputy-chairman of the authority is the chairman of the board. One of the other board members is employed by the authority. The two remaining members come from the advisory council.
If such a body is to appear to be independent, it should also appear to be effective. We have two bodies which in different ways have been set up to safeguard and represent the public interest. The IBA has accepted in principle and in practice that such boards and such actions are necessary. It would seem, from what I have studied of the Select Committee's report and from my own observations, that these bodies are ineffective. No one can claim seriously that they effectively protect the consumer and the public interest. Therefore, we are left with the need for such a body.
I now turn briefly to the kind of body which we should have. I do not need to set out in detail the terms of reference of such a body, first because I have tried to set them out previously in the House, when the hon. Member for Derby, North did not agree with me then either, but secondly because I think that there are very important areas for debate in the


matter. I believe, however, that there is need for a consumer council in broadcasting, set up not to censor but to carry out effectively the aims laid down for the advisory council and for the complaints review board.
The advisory council should be scrapped in its present form and a new broadcasting council should be set up to include the aims, and perhaps even expand upon the aims, given to the advisory council. I would hope that a broadcasting council would be able to take on the kind of rôle which the Press Council occupies—making a declaration of principle in an important area. For example, the Press Council condemned the serialisation of memoirs by criminals.
At the same time, the broadcasting council should also accept complaints. Again, this would not be a method of controlling the broadcasters but would provide a means of proper redress for the public. I think that the council should consider complaints from members of the public who believe that they have been treated unjustly or unfairly by the broadcasting organisation. I believe that the public should be able to complain when there are errors of fact or when there have been omissions which have made the whole misleading. I believe that members of the public should be able to complain when there are allegations of bias, which is important in a broadcasting organisation set up with the remit of providing a balanced service.
Because of shortage of time, I have not been able to go into these matters in detail, but I believe that basically the public have a right to expect that kind of body. It would not be a means of censorship, nor would it be a means of control. It would respect the rights of broadcasters; any body which is set up must respect their rights. It would also respect the rights of the IBA and the board of governors of the BBC. But we should respect also the rights of the public. We should recognise that the public have rights as well and that we should set up the kind of machinery which would sensibly and effectively protect those rights.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I express my regret for having been absent from

the debate for far too long by confining what I have to say to about five minutes. I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) will forgive me if, in that short period, I do not follow him on the questions of consumer representation or of censorship, except to say that in ideas and communication it is hard to separate the interests of consumers from the question of censorship. Whereas the interest of the consumer in other goods or services is to test them himself, it often seems that his main interest in television is to prevent other people from sampling the goods, although he has the perfectly free option of switching off.
Broadcasting, particularly television broadcasting, rides on the back of the relatively high cultural and artistic level of the entertainment programmes. I believe that it is true that these are among the best in the world, but I cannot take the same view of the remainder of the output. From the communications point of view, from the point of view of the quality of political comment in particular, from the point of view of the standing of current affairs interviewing on the media—and I make no party point —we have very poor media indeed.
This applies even more to our Press. The very high quality of the arts and sports pages covers up the very poor standard of political reporting and comment, which is quite often at dimwit level. There is no political commentator writing in the British Press today who even approaches the standard of the best American and European journalists. So poor is the quality that eccentrics like Bernard Levin and conformists like Ronald Butt are thought to be quite good.
The situation in radio and television is even worse, so much so that a recent historical survey of America—a rather dull one actually—by the expatriate Alastair Cooke was received with wide acclaim. Such is the level of comment on the media. Many of our British commentators and interviewers are specialists in trivia, or tedious pontificators, sometimes trying to cover up their own lack of knowledge by hectoring aggression.
Such a Press, radio and television perhaps suit the present Government.


Maybe this is why they want no inquiry.
Our media are dominated by advertising. Even the BBC is conditioned by it because of the need to compete for the mass market in order to maintain the credibility of the licensing system. If at any point the number of people viewing BBC television falls below 50 per cent., the whole licensing system proposition is brought into question. It has been said by the BBC that they had to take extreme measures in order to recapture about 50 per cent. of the audience because if fewer than half the people had been looking at the BBC it would no longer have been possible to maintain the proposition that all the people should be charged a fee for doing what less than half of them wanted to do. So they had to go for the peak viewing time.
The central motivation of our system, although better than that of some, is not public service, which is supposed to be the sole object of the BBC. The central motivation is to please the advertiser and put on programmes which will enable him to capture the largest market at peak viewing hours.
We have created a system which demands a certain technical quality and polish and for this reason our entertainment programmes compare very well with anything I have seen anywhere else. But our system demands no such excellence from the news and communications —although news is better than communications—and consultation, participation, interviewing and current affairs programmes. Much of this area of television and radio is dull, dreary and biased. Particularly is it biased against the wage-earner and his trade unions, which are bashed day after day, night after night, throughout the media. This applies to Press, radio and television. Seldom do we get a good word, seldom does a trade union leader appear on television without being hectored by an aggressive interviewer. Ask any of the lads who have to put up with them. Very seldom do they get a straight opportunity of being interviewed by a sympathetic interviewer.

Mr. Golding: Mr. Golding rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I have calculated the time very carefully and I have about 90

seconds of my five minutes left so my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) must contain himself for a few more moments.
We need to look for a new framework of relationships in the media, in which the domination of the advertiser is ended. That is why I believe an inquiry is so necessary. It is laughable to call what we have now a free Press, and I believe the inquiry ought to embrace the whole of the communications media. I do not believe it is possible to reach correct conclusions about any one of the media without seeing it in the context of the whole.
Therefore I believe the inquiry which should be set up should do something which has never been done before. It should take a look at the entire process of communications, the relationship between them, their motivations, their sources of revenue, the degree to which they are really free or perhaps not free at all. These are the things an inquiry ought to look into.
That is the single point which I intend to make in my contribution, and these are my final words. The difference between this country and the United States is that there they have an honest and vigorous Press which is putting the spotlight on a corrupt society. Here we have tame and cynical media which tend to present a generally well-intentioned society in their own cheap, slick and tawdry terms.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: I should, first, declare my interest, which is that I have no interest. I seem to be not quite alone, but almost alone, in that I am not the director of a television company, nor a trade union official, nor TV executive, nor have I served on the Select Committee. But I have an interest, which is that of the viewer, and I believe that I have very much at heart the interests of tens of thousands of viewers who, as many hon Members have said, are all too silent.
The debate has been fascinating, but to my mind it has concentrated a little too much on technicalities, and I should like to go back to first principles. Two things have emerged from the debate, one of which I am sure my right hon. Friend took on board. I have heard almost


every spech today, and I think that almost without exception every hon. Member is discontented, in one way or another. That is a fairly common thought, and I have no doubt that in that hon. Members are representing their constituents. There is discontent, and I hope that that is known.
Secondly, I think it has been clearly established, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), that advisory councils, whether attached to independent television or to the BBC, are pretty bogus institutions. What they do is not useful and what they decide is not known, and they should not be appointed by the body which they are supposed to advise or criticise.
I now turn to the main part of my speech. Parliament is concerned with power, and it is about the power of the media that I want to talk. I do not think that we can emphasise too strongly the amount of power which now exists in the hands of the media. We should examine both where it lies and how it is exercised.
I was impressed by the best speech that I heard this afternoon. It came from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). I know that the House always turns up an expert on any subject, and I have not always thought of the hon. Gentleman as a person whose views I shared, but I share the views he holds on this issue and I was glad to hear them put so well.
We cannot over-estimate the amount of power that lies in the hands of the media. At one time that used to be argued, but I do not think that it is arguable any more. I was fascinated to read in The Times nearly a year ago of its opinion poll which showed that in the opinion of most people television and radio were more influential than the Government. Whether that is right or wrong—and it is probably right—it is a matter which Parliament cannot ignore.
Television and radio create the climate of the times in which we live. I do not mean merely politics. They influence our dress, our manners, our style of conversation, our methods of family living, and so on. Far more than we ever recognise, we derive our habits from television and radio.
During my lifetime we have seen the power of the House of Commons sink, and the power of the media rise. This is not a thing about which we can do much, but it is a thing that we ought to recognise when we talk of reform. If I speak as a democrat, I doubt the right of any human being to talk to 12 million people. It has to happen, but whether we can maintain the kind of democratic society that we have understood in the past alongside that development is a thing which itself is doubtful.
If power must reside, as it does, to that extent, one asks how it is exercised. Is it exercised responsibly? I pay some kind of tribute to the BBC. I have no doubt at all that its influence in the realm of the arts, of music and much of drama is overwhelmingly good. I doubt whether any broadcasting corporation in the world attains the strength and the skills which it shows in those fields. But, like the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), when I turn to the political field my view changes.
It is not much good arguing that 90 per cent. of the quality is good if the other 10 per cent. is bad, because the other 10 per cent. matters. I take the year 1971. In February 1971 disc jockeys on the BBC were accused of corruption on a massive scale. The BBC itself conceded the possibility of this and ordered an inquiry. We are now in May 1973 and no report has been issued. That just ought not to happen in any public corporation of any sort, and I do not think it is defensible. In June 1971, we had the episode "Yesterday's Men". The governors, conceded that there were leaks, errors and treachery. In July 1971, the governors apologised for an attack on one of Her Majesty's Ministers which was slanderous in character. In August 1971 Lord Carrington had to complain that the standards of reporting in the matter of Ireland were below the standards of accuracy and fairness which he was entitled to expect.
Before the last election, Robin Day— and I do not criticise him but the governors because, whatever members of staff do, they do it under the aegis of the governors and must be assumed to be carrying out the governors' policy— addressing the then Prime Minister, leader of the Labour Party, asked him, "What


would you say to this, Prime Minister? That no one in the country any longer believes a single word you say ". I say that about the leader of a party which is not mine, I do not believe that any commentator has the right to say that to any Minister. It was an outrage and I regret that the BBC did not denounce it as the BBC should have done.
Then, "The World At One". Here is a programme which is designed to be news. The BBC made a world-wide reputation for accuracy and for objectivity, but in this programme we have a breathless mixture of showbiz, news, red-hot comment, up-to-the-moment interview in which accuracy is not important for "we must attract the audience ". I have tried to be fair, but that is the concept behind that programme—the instant comment. There are certain situations in which it does not matter. There are other situations, perhaps when a solider is shot in the street in Belfast, when that sort of manner jars horribly. I should like the BBC to understand that because I do not think it always understands the nature of the criticism that has been made.
I remember Mr. Hardcastle himself— again, I blame the governors, not him— within minutes of the moment when a corpse was in the road, shot by a soldier, asking a witness some question with the comment, "Placing the blame fairly and squarely on the British Army …". I do not know whether the blame was the British Army's. All I am saying is that that sort of thing is just not acceptable in those circumstance without investigation and at that notice. I could quote other examples.
So I am a critic. I am sorry that the Minister has not seized the opportunity which was his, or at least the Government's—I appreciate their responsibility —to act more drastically. Our broadcasting companies and corporation have now reached a state of total non-logic. No one who started today to create a national broadcasting system could conceivably create what we now have. It is time that we began to think again.
There was an argument for the original BBC being a sort of The Times of the air, a Reithian, respectable, high and

mighty, immensely respected organisation. Then that was broken, perhaps wisely, by the introduction of commercial television. From that moment, the logic collapsed. There is no logic in having one body financed by licence fees and another by advertising charges if the two are doing much the same thing.
There might be some logic in a BBC that was publicly financed if it performed the same sort of function as the Arts Council, if it produced material which was not popular. But the present position has no logic and no sense. There is nothing that the BBC does which ITV does not do equally well or equally badly.

Mr. Mayhew: Nonsense.

Mr. King: There should be no implication that one is British and the other non-British. There is no obvious entitlement to the word "British ".
I have no doubt that it is time that we began from the beginning and thought of the sort of set-up that we want. Again, I liked the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North when, quoting someone else, he suggested the possibility of one overall financed committee, with, below it, four television companies and two radio companies all responsible to it, some taking advertisements and some not. I am not didactic on that point. But I am sure that the present arrangement should not last, that far too much power is concentrated in too few hands and that that power is not always exercised responsibly.
I believe that every party in the House shares that criticism from time to time. I do not take the view that the BBC is unfair to the Labour Party or to the Conservative Party. If anything, I would say that it was possibly a little unfair to the Labour Party. But I do take the view that it is unfair to politicians and Parliament as a whole—and that is infinitely more important. That is the origin of my criticism and of my doubts about the exercise of power.
A great opportunity rested upon this Government to right wrongs of which almost everyone perceives the existence. To put that off until 1981 is a dangerous thing to do. That is a year that is all too close to 1984.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I must first thank the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) for concluding his speech and giving me this late slot. It is important that we should have an inquiry, particularly into the BBC. I mentioned once the irony that we have been able to conduct a partial inquiry into the commercial sector of the industry, but we have not been able to examine that sector which belongs to the public, and there is a need for such an examination.
Having been a member of the Select Committee I cannot understand the arguments of Conservative Members who say that an inquiry would be detrimental because it would be disturbing. I do not believe that those of us who served on the Select Committee wasted our time, because the complacency of the IBA has been disturbed to some extent. If all we have done is to get it to talk to the unions or to play a greater part in programme planning and in the networking committee, we shall have done a good job. However, I wonder whether the argument can be sustained that an inquiry would disturb its work. It behoves Conservative Members to tell us how. Has the work of the IBA been upset in the last year because of the inquiry by the Select Committee?
The fourth channel should be allocated because television has great potential and there is room for an increase in the number of regional programmes. I do not like the over-dependence of the BBC and its over-centralisation in London and the South-East. There should be more experimental programmes and not only for those who suffer from insomnia. There is a need for a large increase in educational broadcasting. We need not only an extension of the open university but also the creation of a technical college of the air.
But the fourth channel should not be given to either the IBA or the BBC. I was glad to hear the Minister indicate that it would be possible to allocate it outside the existing institutions. I was pleased to hear that in broadcasting at least there might not be simply a Garden of Eden made for two. There is a great need for the third force which should be

publicly-owned and financed, perhaps from the excessive television profits which are being made following the derestric-tion of hours.
In the report the IBA is criticised for failing to maintain standards and balance. It is important to have the best possible entertainment. The report's main criticism is that television is deficient in the peak viewing period, and that point has not been sufficiently stressed in the debate. We must relate balance and quality to peak time viewing, and that the Select Committee did. There is disagreement between the Select Committee and the IBA on what should be a proper interpretation of the Act on this point. Quite clearly the Select Committee believes that there should be balanced programmes within peak hours. The IBA believes that that is not what the Act says, although the way in which it says it is very pertinent.
This will be a significant point for legislation later in the year and it will be important for the Minister to decide for himself the aims of the Act on this point. There should be programmes of high quality balanced within peak hours.
The IBA has defended some lowering of standards by saying that it is not possible always to control the quality of programmes that are made. I accept that. What I cannot understand is why programmes should be put on if they are not considered to be of sufficient quality. A previous speaker referred to editing. A writer cannot guarantee that what he writes will be of the highest quality, but he does not have to force his writing on other people if he is dissatisfied with it. There is no justification for transmitting films of inferior quality, particularly films from America. It is important to develop British talent, particularly in drama, rather than use films.
One of the most illuminating parts of the inquiry came when we examined Sir Lew Grade on his cutting 20 minutes from a film, something which Lord Aylestone, Chairman of the IBA, could later hardly credit. Sir Lew defended it by saying,
You never find feature films that will fit exactly to a time slot. The reason you cannot run feature films to their full length is because the News has a static time: the News at Ten is at ten ".


If the News at Ten is at ten, the film could at least be started after the 6 o'clock news, or at whatever time is necessary to allow it to run at full length. It was a nonsensical explanation. The IBA has failed to control the way in which films are butchered.
The inquiry also showed that the IBA acted particularly severely when it killed London Weekend Television's current affairs unit. Reparations are being made, but the IBA showed itself to be far from responsible when it did that.
Apart from those errors of judgment, the IBA's failure stems from its lack of financial control. We must go back to Pilkington and understand that we shall not have strong regulations until our regulatory body, the IBA, itself sells the advertising time.
Two other important points are made in the report. One is that there should be enforcement of the law relating to natural breaks and more bunching of advertisements. There is a very strong case for bunching advertisements and preventing their being put on the air between, say, 8 o'clock and 10 o'clock at night, so that programmes of quality can be produced at that time.

Mr. Gorst: Mr. Gorst  rose—

Mr. Golding: I have to be brief.
The job of the IBA is to enforce the Act, not to safeguard commercial interests. My impression, sitting week after week on the Select Committee, was that the IBA saw its rôle as the protection of the commercial interests of the programme companies. The job of the programme companies is to make money. The IBA's job is to enforce the 1964 Act, and it should pay more attention to that than to anything else. I was pleased that the Minister said today that cable television could be encouraged.
The IBA would be stronger if transmissions were taken from it. I believe that the BBC would be less monolithic if transmissions were taken from it, too. There is a compelling argument for the unification of broadcasting transmissions under one agency. The broadcasting authorities should be left to broadcast and some other body should then take over transmission. There should be a national, integrated telecommunications network under public control, and one which

encouraged the development of broadband cable techniques.
It is important, while encouraging cable, that we do not encourage pay-TV in cable. We must make a distinction between wire and cable and insist that privately-owned cable companies should install broad-band cable which will provide facilities for the future rather than provide wire, the use of which is limited. I shall be voting tonight for the amendment to the motion, to which I originally appended my name, because I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) of the importance of the amendment.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: It is a peculiar pleasure for me to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). This can perhaps best be appreciated by those who served on the Standing Committee examining the Sound Broadcasting Bill, when I had to listen to many of his speeches without the privilege of ever being able to answer back. I have, perhaps for too long, been a silent member of what might be called the broadcasting club. I am therefore particularly pleased to have this opportunity, in this rather unusual rôle from the back benches, of speaking last in the debate from this side of the House.
The pleasure is increased because those of us who served on the Standing Committee are under no illusions as regards the capacity of the hon. Member. Tonight we have had but a morsel from him in comparison with some of the contributions of which he is capable.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) said that there were 630 different views on broadcasting in this House. Looking round the Chamber it occurs to me that we have yet again a triumphant exhibition of the silent majority. If there are 630 different views, there are approximately 610 Members who would rather express them elsewhere. The absence of so many people hardly helped the hon. Member in establishing his basic thesis that there is overwhelming interest and concern throughout the country for a wide-ranging inquiry. A rather greater attendance would have helped him in his manful struggle to present that case.
We certainly cannot accuse another long-standing member of the club, the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), of being a member of the silent majority. He has had two bites at the cherry as those who were members of the Select Committee have already heard him speak as a witness, and I congratulate him on his energy in this matter. He seemed somewhat obsessive tonight about the Irish situation. We had a couple of interventions about Telefis Eireann. There is one matter to which the hon. Member should address himself in his concern to import Irish television to Liverpool. He might consider having a licence fee paid by the inhabitants of Dublin. Anyone who has seen the monstrous aerials erected by the inhabitants of Dublin to receive British programmes will realise that the traffic is much more in the other direction.
The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) properly dealt with a number of perhaps secondary recommendations which have not been mentioned by many hon. Members. All of us will have accepted that there was considerable point in his arguments about the position of the advisory council.
The Select Committee commented on the broader membership of the authority. I am in the unusual position of being the last speaker from the Government side, with no responsibility to speak for anyone, and I can therefore make a critical comment. One criterion which might be applied to members of the authority is whether they view or listen. That is one criterion that is not taken into account. I should like to do a survey of the listening and viewing hours of the members of the boards of the BBC and the IBA. I am sure that, if we compared those results with the average listening and viewing time of the general public, it would be found that these busy people who have many demands on their time have little chance to sample the products for which they are responsible. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind this factor in any further appointments he may make.
I remember a certain gentleman, who had had the doubtful privilege of trying to teach me at school, being appointed Chairman of the BBC. On his appointment it was established that he did not

own a television set and never viewed. That is a somewhat doubtful qualification for becoming Chairman of the BBC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts), like the hon. Member for Derby, North, has considerable practical experience, and I was surprised to hear him support the Select Committee recommendation that programmes should be originated by the IBA. This was a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, and the House in considering it must see considerable merit in the IBA argument that it would jeopardise its independence in assessing the quality of programmes. To invite the IBA to originate its own programmes is a recipe for establishing yet another judge and jury in its own cause.
The hon. Member for Derby, North complained about the relative cost of the operation of IBA and contrasted the amount of revenue involved in producing one service with the number of services run on BBC revenue. Part of the problem arises from the plurality of sources, and that will not be helped by adding yet another source to the present production activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) mentioned the Broadcasting Council. This is a theme on which he has spoken before and on which he feels deeply. Every hon. Member will be able to remember incidents in recent years which gave rise to the concern expressed by findings of the advisory council. The point was aptly covered by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who asked to whom such a council would have responsibility.
We have to recognise the problem and the way in which it has been tackled in the past by the board of governors of the BBC and the board of the IBA being made responsible for looking after the public interest. If we were to set up yet another broadcasting council, would those bodies be absolved from responsibility or would their responsibility remain in a diminished form? This is a much wider problem than simply setting up a broadcasting council and saying to whom it should be responsible. This point is partly accepted by the IBA and the BBC in the measures they have initially taken —the BBC with its special council and


the IBA in its answer to the Select Committee report.
In general, the debate so far has been less than fair to my right hon. Friend and to the attitude of the IBA in its reception of the Select Committee report. In the cut and thrust of debate it is understandable that hon. Members concentrate on points in the report which must divide. However, there are a considerable number of points which either my right hon. Friend or the IBA has accepted in part or in whole. They have accepted the validity of many of the comments and have either agreed to discuss them further or have already taken action on them.
My right hon. Friend was criticised a little unfairly by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who unfortunately missed the first part of my right hon. Friend's speech and gained the wrong impression about his attitude to cable television. The hon. Gentleman may also have missed my right hon. Friend's intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North which went a long way to correct that impression. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he was keen to support and to develop further experiments. I welcome that.

Sir J. Eden: The experiments will go on as they have been set out and as they have just begun. What I am keen to support however, is the further development of cable. It is that that I am discussing.

Mr. Whitehead: Before 1981?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making the position clear.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme brought out very well a point which has not been mentioned by anyone else. It has been a surprising omission in the past. It seemed to require the comments of the Select Committee to provoke the IBA into meeting the unions to discuss matters of general interest affecting especially programme quality. Clearly, following the comments of the Select Committee, the IBA has instituted the practice and the first meetings have taken place.
A further point on which, surprisingly, my right hon. Friend was less than enthusiastic concerned the Select Committee's suggestions on the rolling contract.
As my right hon. Friend said, this is already accepted as a principle in the case of radio. It is accepted as being an improvement. It was discussed during our proceedings on the Sound Broadcasting Bill when its advantages were widely recognised. It is a logical extension of the procedure to introduce it to television, and I hope that there will be some more enthusiastic and more positive attempts to see that such a proposal is introduced.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in 1976 none of the 15 television companies should have an automatic second extension of contract from 1976 to 1981?

Mr. King: That is exactly the point I was attempting to make. There is a case for introducing it speedily. There is time before 1981 to get a rolling contract system going, and I hope that it will happen soon.
Another matter which has been accepted is my right hon. Friend's speedy introduction of a study of the coverage of reception. In a sense there are two nations: we are not one nation in terms of reception. One part of the country is rather jaded with what it receives on the three channels and would like a fourth channel as an improvement. The other nation would be glad to have any channel at all, preferably in its own language.
I shudder every time I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Conway talking about the Welsh language. It tends to leak a bit across the Bristol Channel and it is resented by my constituents who find that the only reception they have is in Welsh, a language which they do not find attractive and which is totally incomprehensible. For that reason especially I welcome the speedy way in which my right hon. Friend has set up the survey. It is a matter of real concern to many parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) expressed concern about the presentation of the news. My own impression is that many of the points they have made forcibly and fairly in the past have got home. There has been an improvement in the standard of reporting of news in more recent months than


was the situation in the earlier stages of the difficulties in Ulster.

Mr. Evelyn King: I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been an improvement. I hope that it remains.

Mr. Tom King: It seems that, even in the context of our debate today, my hon. Friend has shown the way that improvements in certain areas of concern can be achieved better than by some of the more wide-ranging solutions proposed by other hon. Members.
This brings me to what must be the core of today's discussion. I have already suggested, understandably, that by concentrating on points of criticism we have tended to conceal from the House that there is more acceptance and agreement by both my right hon. Friend and the IBA of many of the points in the Select Committee's report. But there is one fundamental issue on which there is no agreement. This matter was strongly pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Conway and a number of Labour Members who believe that there should and must be a full, wide-ranging inquiry into broadcasting.
It is said by some—it was said initially by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr)—that there must be an inquiry now and that it must report in time for 1976. Although the recommendations were not listed in order of importance, I suggest that this was the most important recommendation of the lot and that a number of the others were sub-recommendations to the proposal that there must be an inquiry and that it must report by 1976.
My right hon. Friend said that the Government proposed to extend the time for the IBA and the BBC to 1981. What does that mean? It means that, if an inquiry is set up, it must be set up certainly by 1976. Indeed, if the Labour Party's programme for Annan were implemented, the inquiry would have to be set up in 1975. Therefore, the suggestion that the whole issue has been thrown out of the window for eight years is hardly fair.
My right hon. Friend said that we will not have an inquiry now, but will perhaps have one two years hence. That is not

an outrageous postponement, as might be suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They will recall that at the time the Pilkington Committee complained that they were not allowed enough time for the inquiry. I think that 1975 is the kind of time scale we would require to implement changes of any significance by 1981.
I assume that hon. Members who are pressing of an inquiry have ideas of great significance and think that fundamental changes will need to be made. Therefore, they must be particularly conscious of the need for more time for the inquiry to allow for the necessary procedures before any changes can be made. If fundamental changes are to be made, they will not be made in five minutes. That seems to put a different complexion on my right hon. Friend's action. This is a postponement of no more than two years from what is proposed. It is highly preferable to do that than to rush something through by 1976.
Great scorn has been poured on the reasons why there should not be an inquiry. However, I have not heard many convincing reasons why there should be an inquiry at this time.
There is concern about a number of aspects affecting the BBC and the IBA. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South has mentioned some of them. This concern flows, as he has often and eloquently said, from the size of the power that these organisations have. It is inevitable that with their scale of operation mistakes are made from time to time, and by their scope and dimension some of these mistakes can be most painful and grievous.
We must look at the matter in wider perspective. Does the demand for an inquiry stem from a deep-seated concern that all is very sick in the state of broadcasting? Is there profound disquiet and a need for an urgent inquiry? Perhaps some of us are too close to the situation and should stand back and take a general view. When we go abroad, we have a great pride in the international reputation enjoyed by the BBC—a reputation which is unrivalled. Labour Members are pleased to poke fun at the IBA but in this House those same hon. Members fight for the preservation of individual programme companies such as Anglia


Television, and they pay their tributes to these programme companies. With the single exception of one company in London, I cannot recall one attack by a regional member on his own local independent television service. Television is collectively fair game, but individually I have heard no complaint. Therefore, I question how deep and how justified is this concern.
There is a further point which my right hon. Friend the Minister might have made. One change of a great significance in the programme planning of IBA is the freedom of hours which has been granted. This has already resulted in a doubling of the regional programmes now networked and has brought about a significant change in the situation.
The question of whether there should or should not be an inquiry is a matter of judgment. We have heard discussion about digging up the plant to see how healthy are its roots, but we have heard nothing to suggest that this is the right time for an inquiry, the recommendations of which would be implemented in 1981.
On balance I think that my right hon. Friend is right, and I think that the hon. Member for Feltham did less than justice to my right hon. Friend. The report of the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Feltham, is a valuable contribution to our understanding of this subject and is having its effect. But because of the theme of the amendment, which involves an inquiry now rather than in two years' time, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman and I support my right hon. Friend. For that reason, I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. John Grant: Since I recently assumed responsibility for media matters and for broadcasting in particular, I can confirm one longstanding belief—which is that there are no easy answers to the crucial and controversial issues which arise in discussions in this field. On that matter, if on little else, the Government and Opposition Front Benches agree.
We are undoubtedly dealing with matters which are of enormous political and social significance. It is timely to

remind the House that just as the media sometimes act irresponsibly, so sometimes they can act in a democratic society as a crucial check on abuse, and of abuses by politicians. We have only to look at what is now happening on the other side of the Atlantic in Washington to see that.
So this debate has dealt with matters of immense public importance which receive too little attention in this House These matters come to the fore only in situations of immediate crisis or controversy. This has been an interesting and at times stimulating debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will require answers from the Government to some pertinent questions, and some trenchant criticisms have been made.
With all due respect to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), who did a gallant sweeping-up operation, we were entitled to hear from the Government at the end of this debate. There has been a flagrant disregard of the House in this respect. Today The Times mentioned that the Home Secretary has special responsibility in broadcasting matters, and he might well have been the appropriate Minister to reply to this debate.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater said that attendance had been sparse. There has been no shortage of interest or of speakers during the debate. The Government have sought, in the way in which they have handled this debate, to downgrade the situation. When the present Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he regarded this subject as sufficiently important to take part in a similar debate himself.
The debate has ranged over the entire field of broadcasting. It has shown the appalling limitations of the approach in the Government's White Paper. The Minister said that that White Paper was not intended as a comprehensive statement of Government policy. That was the understatement of this debate. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruther-glen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) described it, a pathetic little document. It is a poor and unimaginative dish to set before the House and the nation. The nation will be considerably affected, far more than many people seem to appreciate, by the decisions and non-decisions which are made by the Government in this matter.
I go a little further than my hon. Friend. I think that the White Paper is an insult, particularly to the Select Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and his colleagues spent so many hours making such painstaking inquiries—only to find their key proposals brushed arrogantly aside. The arrogance is not the Minister's—it lies in Downing Street, with the Prime Minister—but the Minister has brushed the proposals aside with some embarrassment, if anything.
The Minister's arguments in the White Paper, which incidentally took a long time to emerge, are so threadbare that they are scarcely there at all. He said very little today to alter my initial view of the While Paper, that it is a tragedy of lost opportunity. All he has done tonight is put a very little flesh on the bare bones.
We now have a little more detail about the study group to look at regional broadcasting services, and we have the chairman's name. That is to be welcomed so far as it goes, but it does not go very far. I hope that the broadcasting interests will be represented on that study group. I have had representations about this from the Federation of Broadcasting Unions. Their interest is to see not necessarily a trade unionist on the study group but at least an active broadcaster.
The study is seen in the trade if I may describe broadcasting that way in this context as a very mini inquiry indeed. I hope that that is unfounded. It is seen as a means of considering many delicate regional problems, but in no sense can it be regarded as a compensation for the full-ranging inquiry into broadcasting which the Select Committee recommended the Minister to institute at the earliest opportunity.
We may as well face the fact that there could never have been such an inquiry under this Government. The Prime Minister made it clear when he was Leader of the Opposition that that was not his view, and immediately he gained office he abandoned the inquiry set up by the Labour Government. To approve an inquiry now would have meant the Prime Minister admitting that he was wrong in 1970. We all know how, once he sets a course, he sticks to it. The National Board for Prices and Incomes, the Con-

sumer Council, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and a compulsory wages policy have all been abandoned or rejected, only to be resurrected or implemented again in some form or other. One could say that the Prime Minister has lurched about like a political drunken sailor.
But on this question of a broadcasting inquiry, in which he is wrong again, the pressures are less acute and the issue is perhaps less emotive. Therefore, he feels that he can avoid admitting another petulant error. It may well be thought that the Conservative Party under the Prime Minister's leadership, is after all, the party of change, because no Government have changed their minds so often in such a short time. The Prime Minister has dogmatically refused to change his mind on the question of a broadcasting inquiry, although the call has come from an all-party committee. It is noticeable that Conservative Members of the Committee have been somewhat conspicuous by their absence today—presumably to spare their blushes.
The call for an inquiry is supported by a very wide range of interested organisations and individuals, including all the broadcasting unions. The Minister claims in the White Paper that the Government recognise the force of the argument for an independent review but says that the Television Advisory Committee has reported. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen had a great deal to say about that report in his forthright speech, and I shall not go over it again.
But whatever the technical arguments, there is a great deal of concern, which has been expressed on both sides of the House, about the structure, finance, access, programme content, accountability and so on. These subjects are what an inquiry should be about. As the Select Committee said,
… it should study the social, cultural economic implications of alternative systems and invite public debate to consider the options.
It may be thought that further technical advances will not be significant until the 1980s, but there are other vital, non-technical matters, which need to be fully and openly examined, not at some future unspecified date, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bridgwater, but now and quickly at the earliest opportunity.


I do not think that the Minister can hide behind technology and ignore all these other far-reaching considerations.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about people being mesmerised by the date 1976. I realise that there is little prospect of it, but if there were to be a change of mind even now about an inquiry, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would need to worry much about 1976, nor—and more important—about 1981, the date he has set for the extension of the BBC charter and the television Acts, because these dates are a movable feast. It could be suggested that a Labour Government may well wish to move them. There is no magic about these dates. I hope that that meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) during the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman also argued that some practical experience of independent radio is desirable before any policy review. But how much better it would have been if, instead of the Government rushing ahead with independent radio, to which the Labour Party remains entirely uncommitted, the review had come first. It is clear that the Government expect that BBC local radio will now be unable to afford to expand. They welcome that because the commercial operators will thereby get a chance to fill the gaps.
Of course, there is not much likelihood of the commercial operators going where it will not be profitable, and the rural areas, which are already suffering in many cases from such things as the withdrawal or threat of withdrawal of bus and train services, will not be able to hope for any sort of compensation in their isolation from locally commercially sponsored radio, even if that were desirable. I hope that the regional study will look into this aspect. Indeed, the best hope for this mini-inquiry will be that inevitably it will call attention to the urgent need for that much wider-ranging investigation which we have been foolishly denied.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the new chairman of the BBC should have time to settle in, but I endorse what some of my hon. Friends said, because my evidence shows that the BBC at all levels would welcome an inquiry and is

still hoping that one will be set up. Overall, the right hon. Gentleman failed to answer the Select Committee's case for an inquiry. If they had televised his speech—and I wish Parliament were televised—it would have had a little white blob on the screen. This is one more decision—to set up an inquiry—which a Labour Government would want to take very quickly if it were returned to office.
The other quite fundamental point made by the Select Committee concerned the allocation of the fourth channel, and a good deal has been said about that in this debate. The Committee said quite categorically that no decision should be taken prior to a general review embracing the broadcasting needs of the country, and the Opposition certainly endorse that point of view. But the Select Committee's references to the fourth channel were quite incredibly dismissed in the White Paper in a single sentence, which just said:
Separate consideration is being given to the question of a fourth channel.
And that was it.
Our fear is that the decision has been pre-empted by the refusal to hold an inquiry. If the Government do allocate it, they are going to do so without the benefit of that wider-ranging public examination of the case. Our fear, too, is that the Government, well softened up by the very powerful and influential commercial television lobby, are already preparing for the big sell-out. It would be very much in character—Thomas Cook, the State breweries, commercial radio itself. The Government have always looked after their own very well indeed.
There is certainly no hard evidence of public demand for early allocation of this channel. We can only hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues remain undecided about this not only now but for the rest of what I hope will be a very short tenure of office. The Minister stressed today that it is quite possible that he will not allocate. That must be acknowledged. However, he must pardon our scepticism as well. Personally, I doubt very much whether the Government will feel able to resist grasping the chance—which, after all, may well be their party's last chance—to hand this immensely valuable public asset over to


the money-makers of the kind who sustain their party.
That is a view which is not confined just to Labour Members of Parliament or even the broadcasting unions. The Financial Times not long ago asserted that the commercial television lobby would" almost certainly meet with success "in its efforts to grab the fourth channel. "Grab" is my word. When the Labour Party talks about extending public ownership, we always see the word "grab" used in the headlines. I hope that, similarly, the headlines will use the word "grab" if, in fact, there is this commercial television carve-up which we still very much fear may happen.
These efforts of the commercial television lobby have been formidable, and the reason is not hard to see. An article in The Sunday Times Business News on 11 th March said:
Apart from anything else, the ITV companies can see advertising income soaring towards £200 million by 1975, which would be double the whole of the BBC's income, and they want this money to stay in the industry rather than be siphoned off as a levy or even to a competitor.
What is clear, above all, is that there has not been proper public discussion of the alternatives, or indeed of whether this fourth channel is desirable at all at this time. I think this is a view which deserves much more serious attention than it is likely to get, in spite of what the Minister says, bearing in mind resources as well as social desirability.
There is a whole range of alternatives, some of which have been mentioned tonight. A number of helpful suggestions have been made by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, and from the Association of Broadcasting Staffs there was an extremely interesting proposal for a national television foundation. There is the possibility of using a fourth channel to get peak-hour placing for minority interest programmes, which is virtually impossible at the moment. There is the possibility of its use for Welsh language broadcasts, repeats of educational programmes, additional regional programmes —all these things, many of which overlap.
What the Minister said is that the criterion is what is in the best interests of the public as a whole, and he is

considering the alternatives. His major mistake is to do so virtually in private, because these alternatives—and there are obviously others; indeed, some have been mentioned today—ought to be aired thoroughly. They require public debate, with the Government giving the debate the necessary impetus. That is the best way of measuring what is in the interests of the public and not, as the Minister appeared to be doing, by telling people that this is what they are to get because the Government know what is best for them.
I am not to be numbered among those who want nothing but culture and moral uplift from television programmes. I am not one of those who think that if things are sufficiently obscure they must be profound. I want a good mixture of information, education and high quality entertainment. Often I want to relax, and perhaps I may give two examples.
I enjoy a top quality Western. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) is not here, but I accept what he said about violence. We get an excess of Hollywood-inspired violence on the television screen in films where blood is thicker than talent.
To give a second example, I referred earlier to relaxation, and the Warhol film has been mentioned. I found it extremely relaxing. It literally sent me to sleep. I think that that kind of programme is designed to cure millions of people of the sleeping-pill habit.
I do not find the existing channels lacking in entertainment, but I question the standard of a great deal of it, geared, as it is, largely to the rat-race of the ratings. I do not think that a fourth channel, primarily entertainment-oriented, which is inevitable if it goes commercial, is what is wanted.
I am recording a personal view and trying to underline the difficulty in reaching a right decision in the best interests of the public. What we are promised is ministerial consideration. We cannot even secure the guarantee of a Green Paper, which has been asked for on a number of occasions, setting out the alternatives and arguments and the Government's preliminary views. Is this the kind of open Government of which the Conservative Party has boasted? If open Government does not start with communications, where the devil does it start?


Time will not permit me to deal with many of the points made in the report, even those which call for Government reaction.
Recommendation 25, which has been referred to in some detail, puts forward the possibility of a council or consumer organisation for all the communication media. This is a matter of considerable public interest, but once again it was dismissed out of hand in the White Paper, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to explain the Government's reasoning on this was inadequate.
The Committee's suggestion is an interesting one. It has far wider implications than some members of the Select Committee may have realised when they reported. What they have said, in effect, is that, far from having the diverse functions which the Minister has mentioned, these interests are inextricably bound together, and it is a fact that all the major newspaper companies have an interest in commercial television companies. They have generally found that a most profitable investment, and the introduction of commercial radio sees a further increase in these overlapping interests.
The media has enormous power and influence, and it is central to our democratic process, but it is far too mealy-mouthed about its own shortcomings. Again, open Government requires a more open media. There should be far more discussion about the media in the media and in this place. An independent consumer voice, not without essential representation from within the industry, should serve to stimulate that discussion, and the Committee's recommendation for a council which would cover the communication media as a whole is deserving of far more consideration that it has been given by the Government. I will do no more than speculate here, but I tend to feel that the case for an inquiry into broadcasting may be matched by the case for a much wider-ranging inquiry into the media as a whole.
The White Paper gives a remarkable impression of complacency, which was repeated in the Minister's speech, suggesting that everything in the broadcasting garden is lovely. I am not to be listed among the extreme critics of our broadcasting. Indeed I pay tribute to it and

think that at best it could not be bettered. Yet we know that there is considerable disquiet in the industry and in public argument, and we have heard it from both sides of the House. There is discontent about censorship, participation, industrial democracy, access and so on. There is the very real issue of financing the BBC.
I am very much an editorial man by background and I have natural reservations about switching from the licence fee system to some kind of grant-in-aid situation. But it may be that editorial men, in public service can get rather too touchy about this and we cannot leave the situation as it is. If nothing else, there is the position of the pensioners as a constant reminder of the problem that exists.
I hope that I have spelled out some of the key issues on which I think a full-scale inquiry should have been set up with a fourth channel as undoubtedly the most urgent and vital. No limited technological inquiry in any way invalidates the case for that.
I want to say a few words about the IBA comments in the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham did a first-class demolition job. The IBA is very understandably defensive. I have concentrated on the Government's views but what is disturbing in the White Paper is the virtual assumption throughout that ITV2 is imminent and that the case has been won. The IBA seems to have used the White Paper as another propaganda vehicle to peddle the case for ITV2. It uses the argument in dealing with problems of achieving balanced schedules, the idea of a programme planning board and regional companies, and even in its comments on the initiation of production it ends by underlining the drawbacks of a single channel. But the IBA does agree that all the proposals for the use of a fourth channel should be given a fair hearing. That does not seem to be "on".
This is the first time I have spoken from the Dispatch Box in a debate. I hope that I have been suitably restrained and moderate, but I must say that I think the Government are treating the House, and therefore the nation, with a considerable degree of contempt. They are again adopting the arrogant and conceited know-all attitude which has been their hallmark in office.
The disquiet will not cease to exist because the Government choose to ignore the views of the Select Committee. The position of the Opposition is clear. We are in no way bound by any decision taken about the fourth channel in this shabby and almost secretive fashion which appears to be the Government's intended method of proceeding. We shall reconsider the whole situation after a general election and we shall want to establish that inquiry.
It has been said that broadcasting is too important to leave to the broadcasters and

that we must find better ways of using it to allow people to speak to each other. There is a great deal in that argument, and I add to it that the future of broadcasting in this country is far too important to leave to the Government of a commercially sponsored party to decide in this hole in the corner fashion. That is why I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support us in the Lobby on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 119.

Division No. 120.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Horam, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Armstrong, Ernest
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.


Booth, Albert
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Jones,Rt.Hn.SIr Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cant, R. B.
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Small, William


Conlan, Bernard
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, David


Deakins, Eric
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


de Freitas, Rt Hn. Sir Geoffrey
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


Dunn, James A.
Marsden, F.
Tinn, James


Edelman, Maurice
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tope, Graham


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mayhew, Christopher
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Walden, Brian (B'ham, All Saints)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hltchin)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Halloran, Michael



Hamling, William
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Bert
Mr. John Golding and


Hattersley, Roy
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Heffrr, Eric S
Oswald, Thomas





NOES


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Hiley, Joseph


Benyon, W.
Eyre, Reginald
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton,Test)


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fidler, Michael
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricis


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fortescue, Tim
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Norman
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gorst, John
Kimball, Marcus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clegg, Walter
Gray, Hamish
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cooke, Robert
Green, Alan
Kinsey, J. R.


Coombs, Derek
Grylls, Michael
Luce, R. N.


Costain, A. P.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurlce(Farnham)


Deedes, Rt. Hn W. F.
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)




Madel, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mather, Carol
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tebbit, Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Temple, John M


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tilney, John


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Money, Ernie
Rost, Peter
Trew, Peter


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott, Nicholas
Tugendhat, Christopher


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Warren, Kenneth


Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Weatherill, Bernard


Murton, Oscar
Soref, Harold
Winterton, Nicholas


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Speed, Keith
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Peel, Sir John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Worsley, Marcus


Percival, Ian
Stokes, John
Younger, Hn. George


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stuttatord, Dr. Tom



Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Redmond, Robert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in the last Session of Parliament and of the relevant Government observations on this Report (Command Paper No. 5244).

TRANQUILLISING DRUGS

10.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I beg to move,
That the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 720), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th April, be approved.
The order relates to drugs sold by the Roche Group—Roche Products Ltd., SAPAC Corporation Ltd., and F. Hoffmann-La Roche and other associated companies—mainly as librium and valium, chlordiazepoxide and diazepam. The purpose of the order is to give effect to the report of the Monopolies Commission which recommended substantial reductions in Roche's prices for these drugs.
I should like at the very beginning to take the opportunity of paying tribute to the thoroughness of the Monopolies Commission's work and the clarity of its report.
Before I deal with the order itself, I think the House may find it helpful if I describe the events which led to the reference to the Monopolies Commission and summarise the commission's main conclusions and recommendations.
The prices of medicines prescribed under the National Health Service are controlled under the arrangements of the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme, whose terms are negotiated between the Health Departments and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. The major drug-supplying companies are asked to provide the Department of Health and Social Security with annual financial returns duly certified by independent accountants giving the breakdown of sales, costs and the capital attributable to their business in National Health Service medicines, supported by and reconciled with the published accounts for their whole business.
The Department then assesses the profitability of each company's sales to the National Health Service in relation to the capital allocated to that part of the business, taking particular account of research, as well as investment and any other costs. Additionally, in the case

of foreign-owned companies, the transfer prices are considered where they occur. If the Department considers that profitability is too high, negotiations are opened with the company to secure the price reductions which the Department considers acceptable.
The House should know that there had been difficulties about the prices of librium and valium during the 1960s. During this time Roche had made repayments to the Department of Health and Social Security in respect of over-pricing. When the time came for Roche to provide information for 1970 it refused to do so voluntarily, and a statutory direction had to be issued in July 1971 to compel it. The information was eventually provided in December 1971.
In the meantime, during the spring and summer of 1971 the Department of Health and Social Security, carrying out further investigations, found that the active ingredients of these two drugs of a good quality had become available in some overseas countries at much lower prices. As soon as the information was fully confirmed it was decided that a reference should be made to the Monopolies Commission. This was done on 14th September 1971.
The commission's report was received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 27th February 1973 and published on 12th April. The commission's investigation was, as its report shows, full and exhaustive. It was in no doubt that monopoly conditions existed, since Roche supplies 99 per cent. of the reference products in the United Kingdom. It also found that Roche's monopoly position led to its being able to determine the level of prices within much wider limits than most suppliers.
The Monopolies Commission was concerned to establish whether the company's prices for the two drugs were unreasonably high. In considering this it was concerned with the costs which are or should be chargeable against sales of the drugs and the resulting profit margin.
The starting point was the massive discrepancy between the manufacturing costs of the active ingredients of the products—approximately £9 and £20 per


kilo respectively—and the transfer prices paid by the United Kingdom company to the Group—over £360 and £900 per kilo in 1970.
The Monopolies Commission encountered certain difficulties in obtaining information which it thought necessary to support the group's claims as to the proper charge for research expenditure, and it found the published accounts of the group exceptionally uninformative.
Nevertheless it emphasised that its calculations had been made on a conservative basis.
Nor did it think that cost increases since 1970 should significantly affect the general picture. It thought that profits implying a return on capital on the trade in reference goods in excess of 70 per cent. had been achieved. Even then it emphasised that this was a conservative estimate which did not take into account its reservations about the acceptability of the cost figures involved in the calculations.
I should make it clear that the Monopolies Commission fully recognises, as does the Department of Health and Social Security, that the financing of research is an essential activity in the ethical drug industry. It cannot be said that the commission ignored or gave too little weight to the importance of this consideration. But—and the Government endorse this view—as regards research expenditure in general, the commission did not accept that in the virtual absence of price competition there was no limit to the price and profit levels a manufacturer was justified in setting himself so long as he used the proceeds to expand his research.
The figures for research cost which the commission had identified were substantially higher than could be accepted as reasonable in relation to fair selling prices. As regards innovation, it recognised that there was justification for high prices in early years. But it considered that, after a few years during which a very high rate of profit might have been achieved, exploitation could be kept within reasonable limits by adequate regular price reductions.
It was a matter of judgment at what stage undue exploitation of success can be said to begin but the commission had

no doubt that in the present exceptional case this stage had long been passed.
Prices of librium have not been reduced since the introduction of the drug in 1960. Prices of valium were maintained from the introduction in 1963 until mid-1972, when the average selling price was reduced by about 30 per cent. This did not, in the commission's view, bring the price down to a fair level. I am of course aware that there has been a further reduction in the prices of valium since the report.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs announced in his statement in the House on 12th April, the Monopolies Commission reached the clear conclusion that United Kingdom prices for some years have been manifestly too high and that the Roche Group has accordingly obtained from the sale of the drugs in this industry profits far in excess of what is justifiable.
The Government accept the report's conclusions together with its main recommendation that the price of librium should be reduced to not more than 40 per cent. of the 1970 price and the price of valium to not more than 25 per cent. of the 1970 price, with corresponding reductions for certain other less widely used drugs covered by the reference.
In view of the serious situation disclosed by the Monopolies Commission, my right hon. Friend considered that it would be appropriate to make immediate use of the Government's powers under the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 to make the order which we are debating.
Obviously, this case must raise in the public mind the question: "Are there any more like Roche taking advantage of the National Health Service?"
Department of Health and Social Security negotiations with the manufacturers are based on the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme. The current scheme, which ran from 1969, was agreed between the Department and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, and was amended in 1972.
Because of the diversity of the industry, the scheme avoids detailed criteria, and prices are negotiated on the basis of profitability, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of each individual company. I have already gone into many


of those. Most manufacturers co-operate freely, but some have to be directed to supply information. Nevertheless, in all cases but this one we have been able to obtain information which has enabled us to agree price levels which are considered reasonable.
I should also re-emphasise to the House that the prices come under review annually.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: Am I right in thinking that among the companies that are co-operating voluntarily are other Swiss companies, and that Hoffmann-La Roche is not the only company in this position but that other Swiss companies are co-operating to an extent that Hoffmann-La Roche has so far refused to do?

Mr. Emery: I do not want to pick out Swiss companies. All companies are, as I have said, co-operating with the Department. Some have found difficulty, and direction has been necessary. In all cases but this one we have been able to obtain sufficient information to agree reasonable prices—and that covers some Swiss companies.
I now turn to the order. Its purpose is to implement the Monopolies Commission's recommendations that Roche Product's selling price for the reference drugs should be reduced. Its effect is to reduce the prices of librium and valium to the highest levels which the commission regarded as justified.
The order requires an affirmative resolution in both Houses. I am aware that certain procedures have been initiated in another place by Roche, and it is not for me to comment on them. This House, however, has a duty to reach its own decision on the order, and I do not consider that it is necessary to await the outcome of the quite separate proceedings in another place before doing so.
It may be helpful for me briefly to go through the order and describe its operation.
Articles 1 and 2 define the products and the companies to which the order applies. The relevant products are at present sold in the United Kingdom only by Roche Products Limited. The order is extended by Article 2 to the whole

Roche Group to prevent supply at higher prices by other companies in the group.
Article 3 limits prices for the relevant medicines when sold by any of the Roche companies to the prices specified in column 3 of the schedule. The controlled prices for librium and valium are those recommended by the commission as "fair prices" and "more than adequate in the light of the facts revealed in the report". The prices for other reference drugs were, as recommended by the commission, calculated as corresponding proportions.
Article 4 precludes the Roche group of companies from imposing on the sale of reference drugs any condition requiring the purchase of other pharmaceutical products, and Article 5 is necessary to ensure that, in a market where resale price maintenance is authorised, the wholesale and retail prices are reduced in parallel with the manufacturer's selling price, to which the order principally applies.
The order does not touch on the question of repayments by Roche, and the new prices are not designed to include provision for such recovery. There is no power to order repayments to be made, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has already approached Roche on this subject.
The order, however, ensures that from the time of its coming into force on 23rd April the prices of the reference drugs in the United Kingdom market are reduced to the level which the Monopolies Commission recommended.
In considering the Monopolies Commission's report the Government had in mind the fact that the commission had reached a clear conclusion after a most thorough and objective inquiry and that in making its recommendation the commission saw no room for argument that what might appear to be drastic reductions were unduly severe.
The Government therefore decided that it was right to make the speediest response to the situation which the law allows.
For that reason, I commend the order to the House.

10.26 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: The Opposition welcome the purpose for


which the order is being introduced. We join the Under-Secretary in congratulating the Monopolies Commission on what seems to be an excellent report revealing that excessive prices for valium and librium have been producing excessive profits on a very large scale, especially as the commission was working at a great disadvantage because Roche refused to reveal either the total turnover of the company or the total research expenditure.
It is both essential and urgent that the prices of librium and valium should now be regulated.
I wish to raise various aspects relating to the findings of the Monopolies Commission, to events leading up to this order and to additional action which the Government should take.
I acknowledge that the drugs industry has particular features. The development of a new drug is extremely expensive. The estimated cost of producing a successful and safe new drug is in the range of £5 million to £9 million, and there is a large element of risk in any development as to whether it will be successful at all.
Although the pharmaceutical industry has an above average profitability, the situation is complicated by the fact that its companies are frequently multinational and by the fact that, whereas the drugs are provided by doctors they are paid for by the taxpayer.
A study of the history of the events leading to the present situation shows that it has been preceded by a long gestation period. As long ago as 1966 the Ministry informed Roche that there was room for a reduction in prices. But the House should recall that over the years successive House of Commons Public Accounts Committees have been critical of the prices of medicines and the profits of pharmaceutical firms—not just Roche. These Public Accounts Committees have expressed strong reservations about the effectiveness of Government attempts to ensure reasonable prices.
After the 1966 attempt to reduce prices it was another five years before these were reported to the Monopolies Commission.
Appreciating that Roche is uncooperative and secretive, clearly there are weaknesses in the voluntary price regulations scheme, and one wonders whether the seriousness of the situation could not have been revealed earlier.
Has the Minister given thought to the Sainsbury Committee's recommendations concerning standard cost returns? The Sainsbury Committee reported in 1967 and made three main recommendations. The first was that the Ministry should be entitled to obtain from the manufacturer of any medical product a standard cost return in a prescribed form. The second recommendation was that these should be required for all new medicines and existing ones with health service sales exceeding £250,000 a year. The third was that the Department should compare its own estimates of costs with the standard cost return and negotiate the prices of medicines on this basis.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Lady is straying into the area of control of prices for all drugs and medicines. That is hardly in order on the motion.

Dr. Summerskill: I expected that you might say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I gave it some thought. The order is based on the Monopolies Commission's report in which there are references to the whole principle of standard cost return.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. But the whole point is that it may be debated only so far as it applies to the order.

Dr. Summerskill: Referring to the order, I feel that standard cost return should have been considered. Is that all right, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Anyway, I have finished that point.
Have the Government any plans to adopt the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee in connection with the order?
A further recommendation by the Sainsbury Committee, in connection with the order, is that there should be no brand names for new pharmaceutical products. All products, whether the subject of patents or not, should be marketed only under a name approved by the Medicines Commission.
The arguments for this, showing that brand names are an obstacle to price competition, were clearly expressed in the Sainsbury report. Conversely, it is generally accepted that the conditions and supply of medicines not sold under a brand name are such as to secure a competitive situation and reasonable prices.
I come now to the fact that the Department has been aware of prices offered by Italian producers. These prices are lower than those of Roche's valium and iibrium for therapeutically similar drugs May I ask the Minister to enlighten us about the Italian equivalents? Are they now being considered for purchase by the Department? May we have an undertaking that the Department will not in future accept, on behalf of hospitals, free supplies of any drugs, as it has done until last year of valium and librium?
The reasons for this are most clearly given in paragraph 180 of the Monopolies Commissions' report. The report, leading to the order now before the House, has revealed the weaknesses and the strengths of patent legislation in this country. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us whether it is the Government's intention to press for the unification and co-ordination of patent legislation within the Common Market?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not go so wide. She must refer to the drugs and to the order.

Dr. Summerskill: The Monopolies Commission's Report on valium and librium draws attention to the Banks Committee's recommendations. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to implement these recommendations, which I know they support?
Regarding Section 46 of the Patents Act, may I ask the Minister to tell us whether he supports its retention, and whether he will look particularly at the Sainsbury Committee's recommendation that it should be extended to include general medical and pharmaceutical services?
A particular feature of the report and the order is that classical price competition is absent in the prescription medicine market. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are at least 13 other tranquillisers available on National Health Service prescription, apart from librium

and valium? What success has tropium had since it was marketed as a version of these drugs compared with valium and librium?
I ask the Under-Secretary to refer to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who I am glad to see is here, the following points which are raised in the Monopolies Commission's report. There is the question of the doctor's freedom to prescribe. The doctors primarily concerned—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the report. The hon. Lady is trying to debate the whole report.

Mr. Eric Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State was able to refer not only to the Roche company and these drugs but to other companies which were excluded. A reference was then allowed to other Swiss companies. Is it possible to raise this matter only on business questions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a difference between a debate and a reference. Short references are permitted, but not a debate on the whole subject.

Dr. Summerskill: I can only refer to the explanatory note, which says that it is not part of the order, and, therefore, I suppose the Monopolies Commission's report is not relevant. Although the order is based on the report, can I not bring in the report?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is possible to bring in the report by reference but not to dwell on it.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not allowed to discuss these two drugs, because, depending on the answers we get, we shall then be able to decide whether to approve the order? If we are not allowed to discuss these drugs, we shall not know whether the order should be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member and the House are entitled to discuss the drugs referred to in the order. That is perfectly possible.

Dr. Summerskill: I shall try not to dwell on a few more points and then I shall conclude. I hope that the Secretary


of State for Social Services will consider referring to doctors the possibility of prescribing other tranquillisers equally effective and cheaper which preferably do not have brand names. It has been shown that valium and librium, which have brand names, are expensive partly because of that property.
The last point I wish to make refers to the Under-Secretary of State's welcome assurance that public concern that the Roche case may be one aspect of a much larger problem can be allayed and that other prices have been agreed all of which are considered reasonable. This is welcome news. The pharmaceutical industry plays a vital rôle in the treatment of society, and in this context the National Health Service is totally dependent on it. For these reasons the industry should exercise a special degree of responsibility in its behaviour. It is for the Government and the House to be vigilant in ensuring that this is done.

10.39 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: When we first heard of this report, one of my right hon. Friends stated that it dealt with extremely valuable drugs, and this point has not been stressed tonight. These drugs are not just "any" drugs. They happen to be drugs which are essential in medical practice. We tend to think of them as merely the opiates of the people—the modern equivalent of the Marxist view of the church's rôle. But these are not just tranquillisers. They are used in anaesthesia and also in the treatment of epileptics—and for one serious form of epilepsy the drug is probably life-saving.
We are dealing here with two things: on the one side finance, and on the other side human lives and human suffering. This is a difficult balance to achieve. Tonight we have heard only about the finance. We must be careful in making our financial point not to increase the sum of the world's misery. This is my first point; so far in this debate we have not heard very much about it, but that is what it is all about.
Secondly, we have heard that profits are excessive. I have no doubt that profits may be high and firmly believe that they may be excessive. Because of Roche's secrecy it has been impossible

to say what the profits are. It has also been impossible to say what they should be. Research costs must be considered. If we look back to practising medicine before there were modern tranquillisers, it was really barbiturates or nothing for this group of diseases. Barbiturate addiction developed. This was and is a great social evil. Many forms of barbiturates were extremely expensive; and so many millions of pounds were spent on research, and that spending has now produced these relatively safe drugs.
I want to know what my hon. Friend considers to be a fair proportion of any profits from a drug which should be ploughed back into research. That is not research into the current drug which is making a profit at the moment but for the next one coming along which may save some other problem from afflicting the world. To say that profits are excessive is a hard decision to make when it is not known what a company is doing with its profits. No doubt it is Roche's fault for not telling us. We should not make that assumption until we know how the money is spent.
Is it all Roche's fault? Did the Department allow the matter to go on for too long? The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) has told us about Italian drugs. The Italians manufacture similar drugs at a fraction of the cost. That has been done for many years. How is it that the Department did not know that? If it did know, why did it not take action before? That is an important matter which must be considered.
We were told that these drugs were ordered by doctors and paid for by the taxpayer. But one section of the sequence has been left out. They are drugs which are ordered by doctors and paid for by the taxpayer for the taxpayer. By paying for those drugs the taxpayer may well save someone's life.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I often have the privilege of speaking after the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Tom Stuttaford). I normally find myself in full agreement with him, but tonight I am in less than full agreement. I agree with his opening comments abut the order. We should not lose sight of the fact that without some


of the modern drugs like valium and librium the whole scene of treatment of illness would be vastly different.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the order is not about the efficacy of the drugs or any other drugs but about profiteering. That is why the order is being made. I shall remind the House of the background to the order which the Under-Secretary of State sketched out. We must, if we are to pass the order, take into consideration the effect which it will have on the possibility of cash being available for research.
I remind the hon. Member for Norwich, South that the Sainsbury Committee showed that, whereas 14·9 per cent. was being spent on promotion and on the literature which the hon. Gentleman receives as a GP, only 9 per cent. was being spent on research in general. I had the privilege of visiting the Roche factory during a recent visit to New Jersey. When I asked about the amount spent on research—I had the privilege of seeing Roche's very fine research laboratory—and asked for a comparison between Roche's promotion figures and the amount which it was spending on research, the executive gave a hollow laugh. That rather bears out the order. In fact, I did not get any more information. I could get as much information as I wanted about the money spent upon research, but no information on the amount which Roche was spending on promotion.
The background sketched by the Under-Secretary of State in his opening revealed a number of matters about the order. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, a tremendous time elapsed before action took place. There is the whole question of the arrangements with Roche about the voluntary price regulation scheme and the scheme itself. The order, inevitably, would not have been needed had the voluntary price regulation scheme bitten. It took the time which the hon. Gentleman indicated before that occurred.
The order does not contain, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, any ways and means of recovery of the amount of excess profits which we have had to pay. There is a precedent. Pfizers, a large international company, recently paid back £50,000 on another small drug transac-

tion to the United States. When for seven years millions of pounds have been paid unnecessarily by the National Health Service, I cannot see why it is not possible not only to take the action in the order but to recover a little of what has been paid. I understand that negotiations are going on. I hope that the Secretary of State will feel that tonight's debate will strengthen his hand in those negotiations. We are strongly supporting the Minister tonight.
Incidentally, if only all orders were brought under the positive rather than the negative procedure we should have much more chance to probe this kind of matter.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South seemed to say that elsewhere everything in the garden was lovely, but I remind him that when Pfizer repaid the £50,000 it was after the Food and Drug Administration had been examining the products and found that the price was fair. We are not privy to the precise kind of argument in the negotiations with Roche so far. I recently discussed the matter with a former official of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, of which Roche is a member, who reckoned that for at least 10 years over the whole range of tranquillisers, not just valium and librium, we had been paying far more than necessary.
The Monopolies Commission's report from which the order emerges also deal with mogadon, which has quite a large sale—about £1·4 million. Yet nowhere in the order can I find anything dealing with what I believe to be an excess profit on mogadon. Should not the order deal with it? Before we pass the order, should not we have an explanation why the schedule covers librium, valium, brontrium, libraxin and pentrium, but makes no mention of mogadon?
It is well known that some of the drugs have been of immense value in psychiatric treatment in the psychiatric wards of hospitals, the psychiatric hospitals and day hospitals in particular. But it is generally understood that many of the minor tranquillisers of Roche, some of which are included in the order, are placebos.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that mogadon is not a minor


tranquilliser? It has one great advantage, being the only safe sleeping pill. It is practically impossible to kill oneself with it, whereas the other sleeping pills are dangerous and addictive. Therefore, it has a very real rôle in pharmacopeia.

Mr. Pavitt: I could accept that point, but a placebo would do as well. Even with the mild tranquillisers there can be side effects—though not so bad as with thalidomide. It is far better to pre-cribe a placebo than even the mildest of tranquillisers, and save the taxpayer money.
I have been tempted to wander a little from the order. Is the order necessary, as the patents will expire before long? Some of the Roche products referred to in the report of the Monopolies Commission are not mentioned in the order. Is it because of the patent law that those items do not appear in the advice to the Secretary of State? In view of this order, it would be sheer nonsense if there were to be a change in the present patent law to the benefit of the drug companies. Roche has been involved in the pressure that has been exerted for a change in the law—pressure to change the 16-year rule to 20 years. In view of the order, such a change would be dangerous in terms of the profit making that could occur at the expense of the National Health Service, which is now paying £230 million a year for drugs.
We support the order, and we wish more strength to the Department's elbow. We hope that this is the first of many similar orders to deal not only with tranquillisers but with antibiotics and the other drugs for which we are paying far too much for the privilege of keeping up the profits of the drug companies.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: This is an excellent and strong report, as one would expect from Sir Ashton Roskill, Professor Hart and Mr. Gordon Richardson, to name only three of the members of the commission. We must congratulate them, and we must congratulate the Government for acting so promptly and so strongly so soon after receiving the report.
The only thing that is wrong with the report is its title, which is quite unpro-

nounceable, and I think that the Monopolies Commission requires the services of a public relations expert if it is to give reports such as this the proper publicity and circulation they deserve.
I have two small and perhaps per-nickity queries to raise on the order. I strongly support the order but, as I understand it, it is directed by paragraph 2 solely to the Roche group and its subsidiaries. Does the order go far enough? Would it be possible for Roche to sell at the old price to a totally independent company in, say, Germany or Luxembourg and for that independent company to sell in England at the old price, minus its margin of profit? The order is directed only to the Roche group. It could presumably license such an independent company to act as middle man, and that would defeat the purposes of the order. That is my first question, which perhaps tends to show that the order does not go far enough.
My second question is rather more difficult to describe, but it indicates that in one respect the order goes too far. I am all for prescribing reasonable prices in cases such as this. I think that the research argument, much emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), has been brilliantly—I shall not say "exploded" —blown upon by paragraph 224 of the report. But if there are to be reasonable prices, there must be no element of retrospection of penalty. That would be ultra vires the purposes of such an order.
It may be right to try to claw back some of the profits by other means, and I should not be against that, but I should be against fixing prices for the future if such prices were to contain a penalty element for profits made in the past. As I read the report, although it is obscure on this point, I think that that may have happened.
Paragraph 218 of the report shows that the commission took three factors into account in recommending a remedy. The first was costs and the second was the level of profits which would be regarded as reasonable, both of which are right. The third was the extent to which the excessive prices charged hitherto could be brought into the reckoning.
So the commission considered that in fixing the price for the future it was


considering a penal element. A further indication is given in the second sentence of paragraph 236:
No future price which it is practicable to recommend for the reference drugs could take full account of the excessive profits which have been made on them at the expense of the NHS in the past".
So some account was taken of this, although not full account.
That again shows that, in spits of what the Minister said, when in paragraph 237 the commission prescribed reasonable selling prices for the future, which prices have been prescribed in the order, it was taking some account of the excessive prices of the past. There is a penal and retrospective element here. I am not against that as a matter of justice, but I am warning the Government that, if my analysis is right, they may find that this may be regarded in another place and by other procedures as ultra-vires. I do not think that in fixing the price for the future the Government should or can, under the powers of the statutes setting up the Monopolies Commission, take that retrospective factor into account.
Not knowing anything about the drug industry, as other speakers do, but knowing something of the operation of the Monopolies Commission, having an abiding admiration and affection for it and being delighted that this Government, unlike the previous Government, are not attempting to dilute it with other considerations, I believe that the commission has lived up to its long and well-deserved reputation—a reputation that the Government have endorsed by their swift and drastic action in this case.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: It is not often that a Minister can bring forward a measure which has such general support. I doubt whether particularly this Minister has managed to bring forward, whether in Government or Opposition, matters which have such common agreement. The support has been critical, but in the main those who might have been expected to oppose the order are notably absent tonight.
The Minister said that there had been difficulties about the pricing of librium and valium during the 60s and 70s. That is possibly the understatement of the year. I doubt whether Roche is any more popu-

lar within the British pharmaceutical industry than it is in certain parts of the Department. But the lessons will certainly be learned.
No one is denying the importance of valium and librium. This is not, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) suggested—I say this with respect for his special knowledge—a conflict between the importance of human life and simple money. It is a question of whether multiples of 40 and 45 are fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Of course everyone will accept the importance of research, investment and all the other things. No one has yet been able to provide a general formula to say that in all circumstances something is fair and something else is unfair. But one way of judging that fairness is the willingness of a company to provide information. The vast majority of companies, as we are told, give that information freely. There is the bick stick in the background, but if there are difficulties they provide a warning light for those in the Department. A company with nothing to hide will give information and try to be helpful. If information is not coming forward as readily as it might be, it should be a warning to the Deparament.
I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the present prices are reasonable. We have here to assume obviously that there is no claw-back or voluntary repayment. Can his present staff, by numbers, quality and qualification, be the right sort of gathering department for this information, statistics and specialised knowledge? They have done a good job in getting the information but it took a long time and this may be the most overworked part of his Department.
After the gathering of the information, action has taken place quickly with this order. I doubt whether the Department has the strength to be able to keep an eye on these matters at all times, but it is a good thing that the order has come forward. I hope it will have a speedy conclusion and that the suggestions in it will be taken up by other parts of the drug industry.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Togendhat: I should like to add my voice to support the order


and to the others congratulating my hon. Friend on the terms in which he has introduced this order.
Not only was the report an outstanding piece of work but the way in which the Government have reacted today, as embodied in the order, is exemplary. I hope the Government will live up to the high standards set now when dealing with future Monopolies Commission's reports of similar importance.
In saying this, one must also emphasise the nature of the people who made the report. In some newspaper reports of Roche's reaction to the Monopolies Commission's report the suggestion is made—I do not know whether it has been correctly reported—that the company tried to pour scorn on the responsibility of the report and on the degree of authority of those who produced it.
Everybody in this House and those outside, in Switzerland as well as the United Kingdom, will recognise the expertise and authoritativeness of Sir Ashton Roskill, Mr. Gordon Richardson and other members.
We all recognise that the company is outstanding and that its contributions to human happiness through its research in drugs has been considerable and that these two drugs, valium and librium, are outstanding in their field and have rendered great service to the human race.
We are concerned not with criticising the drugs, nor the company's record in this respect, but in determining whether the Government are fair and reasonable in forcing this kind of demand on the company to ensure what they regard as fair dealing.
Here, two points must be raised by all of us who are neither doctors nor lawyers but are interested in the organisation of business and in the good name of business.
The first is that it is deplorable that a company of Roche's distinction operating in many countries, with a substantial stake in the economies of many countries, should have refused to co-operate with the Commission to the extent that it did; and that the way the Government reacted in producing the report to ensure that the company must respect the criteria of fairness is no more than is absolutely

necessary. That is not to say that the company's argument as put forward in the extremely expensive advertisements it has been buying in the national Press are necessarily wrong. In theory it may well be right, but the trouble is that since the company is so secretive and adopts such a superior approach in its dealings with the world it is impossible to know whether it is telling the truth. It may be telling the truth, but unless it produces some basic figures of the sort which other companies, including other Swiss companies, are able to produce it is difficult for us to judge. Since the company behaves in this way any reasonable person has no alternative but to support the order.
It must be stressed that the order will, I hope, lead other companies, not necessarily in the pharmaceutical industry, to take a more realistic and responsible attitude toward their approach to Governments in the problem of transfer prices. The problem of transfer prices is an extremely technical one, but basically when a company is charging the sort of prices which it appears Roche has been charging it is, when all is said and done, a tax fiddle. It is of the greatest importance to make sure that this sort of thing does not happen in future. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that this order may be appropriate not only in this instance but in others.
My greatest hope of all would be that this unhappy incident should be brought to a conclusion by Roche producing the figures to support its claims, and I have no doubt that if those figures supported its claims the Government would withdraw the order and change their attitude. But Roche must realise that until it brings the figures forward, until it feels it can take Governments, countries and customers more into its confidence, and approach the standards of other international companies, grave suspicion will continue about its methods here and abroad, where its prices, by all accounts, are even higher than in Britain.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Emery: Everyone will accept that this has been an extremely helpful debate. It is certainly the first time that I have ever been able to thank all of


the speakers for their support on an order.
I must now answer a considerable number of questions. I have tried to take down most of them, and I will attempt to answer as many as possible. If I miss any or if I do not know the full answers I shall write to the hon. or right hon. Members concerned in order that they may have the information they seek.
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) for her helpful remarks. She cast some doubt and query about weaknesses that she said would exist in a voluntary price negotiation scheme and suggested that standard cost returns, as had been suggested in the Sainsbury report, should be introduced.
I can inform her that Mr. Kenneth Robinson, when he was Minister of Health, and this Government have both looked into the matter. We had rejected it, but we have considered it necessary in our voluntary price negotiation scheme to bring in amendments, as we did last year, in order to try to ensure that this was brought up to date with modern accounting procedures and so on.
The hon. Lady referred to the question of brand names. I have here the statement by Mr. Kenneth Robinson to the House when dealing with the Sainsbury Report. This is a matter of considerable importance which has exercised the interest of many hon. Members. The Sainsbury Committee had recommended that there should be no brand names for new pharmaceutical products, and Mr. Robinson said:
We share the Committee's view that there are disadvantages in the use of brand names in association with heavy sales promotion expenditure, but we believe that the abolition of brand names by Britain in isolation could well have more serious economic consequences than the Committee envisaged, and would in particular be likely to put British-based firms at a disadvantage in export markets."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June 1968; Vol. 767, c. 44.]
The matter has been reconsidered by my right hon. Friend, and he, too, holds that view.

Mr. Pavitt: Just to set the record straight, I point out that the hon. Gentleman is right about Mr. Robinson's statement, but that in the Standing Committee on the Medicines Act 1968 there was a strong revolt, which I led, and I had a very strong vote in my favour.

Mr. Emery: I was about to say that I do not necessarily believe that the view of Mr. Robinson was universally accepted at the time. I did not want particularly to put the finger on the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), but he has now put it on himself. I am simply saying that the present Government have not changed the view expressed by Mr. Robinson.
I was asked about the Banks Committee. The effect of patent monopoly on the supply of drugs to the National Health Service was studied by the committee, which reported in 1970. It recommended the continuation of the Section 46 (Crown use) powers, but recommended the repeal of Section 41 of the Act as being irrelevant in the present context of the arrangements for supplying drugs to the NHS, and possibly damaging to the interests of British drug companies. It is intended to adopt the committee's recommendations in the prospective legislation. Section 46 does all that can be done to eliminate the patent per se as a menace in a situation such as the present.
I do not think I should get involved in the question of other tranquillisers. I wrote down "doctors' preferences", and this is something that we must leave to the medical profession to decide. It cannot be decided by Ministers, particularly Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Another question concerned the free supply of drugs to hospitals and the Armed Forces. The Department, when accepting the free supplies of medicines from Roche between 1969 and 1972, was aware of the effect on possible sales by competitors, but it would have been extremely difficult to prevent the company from making a free gift to hospitals of a drug which they were using in substantial quantities, and which in many cases they would have no option but to obtain from the company offering supplies free of charge. Free supplies which could have the undesirable effect of keeping competitors out of that part of the market have now ceased. The Government have accepted the commission's recommendation that Roche should not differentiate unjustifiably in selling price between different classes of customer. I think that that will meet the position. Free supplies of librium and valium to


hospitals and the Armed Forces have therefore, already ceased.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stutta-ford) emphasised that these drugs are valuable. No one has ever suggested other than that. That he stressed this, with his medical knowledge, seems to be important. My hon. Friend asked me the answer to what is, in this context, an unanswerable question. The fair proportion of profits must be decided by taking into account different circumstances, different research programmes and a host of other things. How long is a piece of string? For me to try to specify any deliberate term would show a complete misunderstanding of the problem. Although that reply may not be of great assistance to my hon. Friend, it is the right and proper one.
I was also asked about the secrecy and whether this issue was the fault of Roche. If anything stands out here it is that this kind of secrecy by international companies must be disastrous and cannot be accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) said that the refusal to co-operate was a great pity. How right he is. He said that he felt that if Roche had produced the figures to support its claim the Government would have considered them. That is right. This type of secrecy must cast doubt. Great doubts must be raised when, as I said, the manufacturing costs of the active ingredients of the two products were approximately £9 and £20 while the transfer prices paid by the United Kingdom company to the group were over £360 and £900 respectively. It is because of this that the Government have rightly taken this action.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West asked whether mogadon was covered by the order. Mogadon does not include chlordiazepoxide or diazepam and was, therefore, outside the scope of the Monopolies Commission's inquiry. Nevertheless, the Department is concerned to ensure—and is carrying out an investigation—that the price of this falls within the reasonable level to which I have referred.
The other matter raised was the expiry of the patents. We felt that although the

expiry of the patents was pending it was right for the Government to act immediately. We have acted about as quickly as the law would allow.
I come to the legal, learned and detailed questions I expect from my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I thank him for his congratulations to the Depart-t ment for the speed with which we dealt with this. We appreciate his congratulations. He asked whether the order goes far enough, and pointed out the possibility of an independent company somewhere in Europe—let us say in Luxembourg—selling the products. It is true that the products could be sold here at a higher price, but if, as appears to be the position, Roche Products wishes to continue marketing in this country, its products will be sold at the price specified in the order. The Government are conscious that people may feel there is an element of trickery here. They will ensure that no one is allowed to take advantage of that.
My hon. and learned Friend went on to speak about retrospection. In our interpretation, the price fixed does not include retrospection. I understand my hon. and learned Friend's arguments and I refer him to the last two sentences of paragraph 236 of the Monopoly Commission's report:
The prices that we are recommending could be considered more than adequate in the light of the facts revealed in our report and particularly so were there to be no repayment of past profits. We certainly see no room for argument that in recommending what may appear to be drastic reductions we are being unduly severe.
The Government do not believe that the prices fixed include any element of past profits, and we are negotiating because Roche may itself consider—as it has done in the past—that it has a duty to make repayments to the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Willesden, West mentioned the American example, and Roche Products in the past has made repayments to the Department of Health and Social Security.
I have tried to reply to as many points as possible, and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 720), a copy of which was laid before the House on 12th April, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIORATION

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I wish to raise the question of the environmental problems in my constituency of Selly Oak, including Mosely and Kings Heath. What I say will probably convey the impression that my constituency is moving towards being a slum, but that is not very obvious because it remains a pleasant part of the industrial city of Birmingham. I offer a warning, however, that the environmental problems will result in my constituency becoming a slum and this warning applies to almost every other industrial city in our land.
With very little advance publicity, a meeting was called in my constituency to discuss this matter, because it is one which greatly concerns the councillors and aldermen of the city. To our great surprise, the large hall that we booked for the meeting—too large, I thought-was filled to overflowing. My constituents flocked to a meeting called by their Member of Parliament to discuss environmental problems when my impression was that the public were not all that much aware of environmental matters. I am grateful to Councillor Gilroy Bevan, Councillor Butcher, Councillor Trevor Solomon and Alderman Lionel Wood, representatives in the constituency who joined this effort.
For the first time we now have a Department of the Environment. If it means anything at all, I hope that what I have to say tonight will be worth while.
Some of us tend to think of environmental problems as being about rivers, trees, pollution, noise and the like, but to someone living in an industrial city they mean what he sees every day of his life at his home.
A decay is taking place in the middle rings of our cities, and my constituency is in the middle ring of Birmingham. Between the city centres and the more modern outer rings which are common to most cities there are houses which were built between 50 and 80 years ago. They are mostly very good properties which are not lacking in the usual amenities, but they have not been maintained properly.
The fear is that the decay of which I speak will spread from the inner rings of our cities to the new outer ring constituencies. My hon. Friend the Undersecretary will know what I am talking about, because he represents one of the other very pleasant parts of the city which so far have not been affected, but before the turn of the century I suppose that it will happen there as well. It is probably the decay of house property which starts it, and I date that back to when rent control started and the owners had insufficient left from their rents to spend on the upkeep of their properties.
We are allowing the spread of decay from city centres which largely have been rebuilt to create slums faster than we rebuild. They are not obsolete or bad structures without amenities, and it is very sad to see them going. In Birmingham the decay has spread gradually from the city centre outwards until it has just reached the edge of my constituency. There is no doubt that it will encroach further into the constituency.
I have not got the time at my disposal to explain the matter fully or do justice to what I have in mind, but perhaps I might list some of the causes and effects of the problem. As I say, I believe that low rents were the start of the trouble. There is multi-occupation on an expanding and serious scale. There are what I call the slum bed-sitters, as compared with some very good bed-sitters accommodation. Immigration has aggravated the situation, because overcrowding is excessive. Lorry parks are not built generally throughout our cities, and certainly there are not sufficient in Birmingham. Therefore, lorries park in my constituency, and we suffer from a few old bangers as well.
There are litter louts. The local authority has concentrated on the old slums on the east side of the city and on rebuilding of the outer areas and of


the city centre itself, neglecting the middle ring for the last 20 years under all shades of local authority representation.
There is the neglect of street cleaning. I do not know how often the streets are cleaned. Those of us who look at these matters with a critical eye never see them cleaned. There is very bad road and footpath maintenance. As I understand it, the overcrowding is to the point of being illegal, and the local authority should have done something about it long ago.
I know the problem of immigrant houses and the overcrowding which takes place there and the problems posed for local authorities with the inflow we have had over the past 10 years, not to mention the Ugandan Asians.
Then there are the complaints about prostitution which seem to come with this sort of trouble. We have noticed recently the take-away food shops and the betting shops coming into the otherwise very pleasant shopping areas. There are a few anarchy groups and lawbreakers. One hears of the muggers coming in. Those are the areas to which such people come —not so much into the new outer ring or into the city centre. We have an outdated transport system and outdated roads almost untouched in the constituency for the past 40 years.
Now, to crown it all—this brought the matter to a head—there has been a suggestion of a road bypassing Kings Heath and part of Moseley. We have all seen the modern new concrete structures creating the new city roads in Birmingham and elsewhere. In Birmingham I would describe them as something between the Manzoni follies and the Spaghetti Junction. If that kind of thing comes into such areas as Kings Heath, Moseley and perhaps Edgbaston, the people will have something to complain about, because such roads ruin any respectable area.
I want to suggest some ways in which something could be done. The local authority must face its responsibilities. It should renew pavements: they have not been touched for in some cases 30 years. It should do some street cleaning in these areas rather than concentrate on the new city centre or the new outer ring. It

should modernise and increase the volume of street lighting. The local authority has a chance to recondition some of the properties it owns. It has taken over some of the properties on the periphery of the constituency.
This would be a grand opportunity for the local authority to recondition the exterior of the properties, paint them, clear the forecourts and make them an example to the neighbours. If we cannot have regular weekly street cleaning, as we do in Westminster and other places, at least we could have a good old spring clean once in a way, and there would be nothing better than to do it now. Many of the forecourts of these once beautiful front gardens ought to be cleared, if necessary by the local authority. It has had to do this in some of the slum areas. I think that the local authority has powers to deal with the lorry parking, which is excessive in the district.
In the long term, the local authority could certainly start to provide some low-cost, small homes for the young married, the elderly and the bed-sitter people. This modern demand is not sufficiently met by the local authorities. We all like to see the provision of houses for large families, but for far too long the young married and the bed-sitter people have been left to fend for themselves. If the local authority feels that this is rather too severe a criticism, let it tell Ministers and their Members of Parliament what sort of powers and what sort of money it needs to deal with the problem.
I suggest, too, that there should be a full, independent inquiry into one of these areas. I would like it to be the area of which I am speaking, but it could be done for any area in the city which is similarly placed. Such an inquiry might be extremely useful and provide us with the information in detail and, perhaps, offer some solutions.
I feel that the Government could do something. The improvement grant system has been remarkably effective throughout the country, and I congratulate the Government on the pressure they have applied in this way. Is it not time, however, to think about revising the terms of the grant so that it covered the exterior of properties to a certain standard of maintenance? I have in mind


some of the houses in Pimlico, so near to us here, where private enterprise has done away with the slums, not by reconstruction of properties, not by clearance, but by transferring the tenants and selling off the leases or letting to tenants on condition that the whole of the outside of the property is cleaned annually and painted every three years. The city council has joined in the scheme, repaved the streets and pavements and erected modern lighting, and the whole area has been transformed. I would say from experience that such areas—I live in one —were far worse than the Birmingham case I have quoted. It may well be that the Government could help the local authority, and I suggest that the local authority should say what help it wants, by changing or extending the improvement grant system.
The question of the bypass road, however, is extremely important. When the day comes, if it does, when the Government have to make a decision on the local authority's planning, I want them to bear in mind that this could again aggravate the problem and create a new slum in Birmingham. We all know the area around these great concrete structures running through the suburbs and creating a wide belt of slum area.
There are better solutions than a bypass road. There is the idea—it is not new but it is practical—of a tube road. I have put this proposal before the Department so that, when it considers this or some other plan, it can look at the idea of a tube road.
There is the revival of the almost redundant railway which Councillor Bevan, as chairman of the local transport undertaking, has suggested and is actively pursuing. But as for the road as at present envisaged, certainly not! I support all those who would rather not see such a road built. We know what it means in Birmingham. We have examples in half the city now. There is a better way to deal with the problem.
My constituency contains well over 60 per cent. of the homes which are provided for the mentally subnormal and for ex-prisoners. I know that there is a great social service here, but it is unevenly spread and does not help. Not every ex-prisoner who is looked after so well in these homes goes straight. To have 60

per cent. of this load added to other problems concerning law and order, and with prostitution and the like creeping into the edge of my constituency, is disturbing. Unless we set an example now, the problem will be extremely serious in the years ahead. That is the idea of preventing more trouble of this nature.
If environment means anything, it means a better standard of life for millions of people in our cities. I hope that before too long we shall have a full debate and that there can be a general inquiry, if not what might be termed a guinea pig inquiry. I shall listen with interest to my hon. Friend's comments.

11.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I have listened with great interest to the very proper expression of concern by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) for the maintenance of the quality of life in these areas of his constituency. He will forgive me if I start by observing that what he has described so well is not, of course, a unique problem but is one that we must face increasingly in many areas of our industrial cities. I fully accept that the environment in this sense has many aspects to it, but the most fundamental need—I think there can be little argument about this—is good housing and having somewhere decent to live in pleasant surroundings. All else flows from this.
In the short time left to me to reply to my hon. Friend, I can approach this matter along two avenues. First, there is the house itself and the need for good space standards and amenities inside the dwelling. Then there is the outer environment, which embraces the setting of the dwelling, the amount of intrusion by traffic and industry, accessibility to parks and green fields and the like.
The situation calls for a two-pronged attack in which central and local government must work together. I should like to highlight and exemplify this by dealing with the Government's approach to the overall problem of slums and older housing.
We are convinced that with a really determined heave we can deal with all unfit houses within 10 years, and last


year the Minister for Housing and Construction launched local authorities on such a drive. The efforts of local authorities will be backed by the new slum clearance subsidy introduced by the Housing Finance Act and the generous Government grants for house improvements.
Added to this, my Department has in hand a review of policy on older housing, The review will take into account the wealth of suggestions made by local authorities in response to the Minister's invitation. The adequacy and flexibility of house improvement grants will be looked at, and also whether anything needs to be done to stimulate work in general improvement areas.
I am well aware that the environment neither starts nor stops at one's front door. I agree with my hon. Friend that the urban environment must be seen as a total entity—a combination of numerous conditions and influences that require a multiple approach when one comes to consider just what practical steps are needed to bring about a worthwhile improvement. I believe we have recognised this by offering to local authorities a range of powers and grants that cover items such as tree planting—for 1973 a 50 per cent. grant towards approved expenditure is available; derelict land reclamation—grants of at least 50 per cent.; and the acquisition of land for public open space—again 50 per cent. grant. All these are in addition to grants and subsidies specifically related to housing, the environment immediately surrounding houses, and roads. The means are there and I am sure the will is there also, although the decision on priorities can be a difficult one—I might say an agonising one—for some authorities.
It is the local authorities which must take action on the ground, and in this case it is the Birmingham City Council, which is the local authority for the Selly Oak constituency. Let us not forget that since the war Birmingham City has had to face a vast housing problem which it has tackled—and I say this across party boundaries—with admirable energy. Slum clearance and house improvement have run at high levels and the city council has been a power house of practical ideas and innovation. For instance, under Sir Francis Griffin's

leadership it introduced rent assistance for tenants of privately-owned houses, acting as a forerunner of the Government's general legislation on this point. In the wider field of urban renewal the city council has its own Standing Urban Renewal Joint Conference to co-ordinate the work of various departments.
To deal with these problems, certain basic approaches are being proposed by Birmingham, depending on the nature of the area. These are, first, general improvement areas, where owners are encouraged to improve and rehabilitate their properties with the assistance of Government grants. Nine such areas have already been declared by the council and I am informed that a total of 68 is intended by 1978.
Within general improvement areas— an important part of Government policy —a great deal can be done to deal with a wide range of environmental blemishes and unsightly patches of neglected land. Such areas are frequently turned into attractive gardens of quiet recreation or children's play spaces. The Government contribution of £200 per house in certain circumstances can be used to tidy up the external appearance of houses, such as garden fences, or walls or untidy passages.
I am glad to see that Birmingham has plans for a major expansion of its general improvement area programme. We in the Government will continue to give every encouragement to this policy. Indeed one of the matters to which we are giving careful thought in the course of our review of policy on older housing is the question of what additional help may be necessary to foster the successful development of general improvement areas.
There is one preliminary point which has emerged from the policy review and which I know will be of some interest to my hon. Friend. The Government are becoming increasingly convinced that it is rarely effective to try to deal with housing stress by means of declaring a general improvement area. Such areas of housing stress were described by my hon. Friend. Where there is an area which suffers from a high degree of overcrowding and multiple occupation, which has a high incidence of furnished accommodation with low-income tenants, it is very difficult, if not almost impos-


sible, to make a real success of a general improvement area.
Unless something is done to deal with the housing conditions in these areas of deprivation, the squalor and the decay tend to increase rapidly. This point was stressed by my hon. Friend. This is another matter to which the Government's policy review is addressing itself. As the White Paper "Widening The Choice" stated, the Government will be coming forward with proposals later in the year to deal comprehensively with the housing problems of those areas suffering from the greatest degree of stress. I am confident that many of these proposals will be relevant to some of the more severe problems which my hon. Friend has described tonight.
As a final word on improvement grant policy, I should mention that the Government are also looking very closely at the question of repairs. I am conscious that perhaps a little more needs to be done to ensure that essential maintenance to older houses, both internally and externally, is undertaken. I am not able to predict what the outcome of the policy review will be on this point, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the need to secure an adequate state of repair throughout our housing stock—and especially in areas of stress, which includes areas like parts of my hon. Friend's constituency—is very much in the Government's mind.
There are also renewal areas. That concept, advanced recently by Birmingham and a number of other local authorities, is one which I am watching with great interest. Such areas can best be described as lying somewhere between general improvement areas and clearance areas, where neither of those processes is wholly appropriate at the moment. The immediate aim is to undertake short-term environmental works with the object of arresting the decline in physical and social conditions until general rehabilitation programmes can be put in hand sometime not too far ahead. Renewal areas are essentially a phasing device ensuring that these areas do not slide further into the morass of decay.
Although the managerial responsibility for all these activities rests with the city council, the central Government are also playing a direct part in improving the Birmingham scene.
My Department, jointly with the local authorities concerned, has recently put in hand studies of selected inner areas of six towns and cities, of which Birmingham is one, with the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the needs of rundown areas and devising a total approach to remedial measures. The job is being done in Birmingham by consultants, working closely with the city council, in a part of the city not far from Moseley. I hope that this will meet the point raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend is more particularly concerned, and rightly so, with parts of his constituency, including the suburbs of Moseley and Kings Heath. I hope he will accept from what I have said that the Government are determined to play their part in developing policies capable of dealing with the problems like those which exist in certain parts of his constituency. Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can direct the city council as to priorities in its choice of programme. No doubt the city council will take note of the many points which my hon. Friend has made, including multi-occupation and lorry parking as well as street cleaning and the renewal of pavements and roadways.
My hon. Friend is also concerned about a suggested bypass for Kings Heath and Moseley. I have said very little about traffic and main traffic routes so far because roads, however distressingly obvious they may be when one lives near to them, are for the most part an exceedingly local if at times virulent threat to the environment.
The A435 is a radial route carrying heavy commuter traffic to and from Red-ditch New Town and Alcester. Birmingham City Council is the highway authority responsible for the road, and for some years it has been thinking of measures by which the congestion on it could be alleviated. Early ideas for widening the main road on its present alignment were abandoned some time ago.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.